> You know, I wasn't going to respond until you said that. I *absolutely* do not
> believe that. I *do* hope you're either joking (in which case, it's a poor
> joke), or you have specific information that backs up your claim that I have
> said things that imply that I have a distaste for GNU Smalltalk.

http://tunes.org/~nef/logs/squeak/07.11.26

16:18:16 <iamtravis> i have gnu smalltalk installed.. a person on #linux 
mentioned this room, so I came in :)
16:18:26 <Randal> iamtravis - get squeak
16:18:32 <Randal> far more mature than gnu smalltalk
16:18:39 <Randal> and a lot more fun, I must say
16:18:52 <Randal> and industrial strength
16:18:57 <Randal> gnu smalltalk still has a ways for that

How can a community build up if you discourage people this way?

> And *that's* what caused me to think about licenses, and
> *start* this whole thread.

My problem is that you didn't start a thread.  You posted your own 
conclusions and that happened to spark a thread.

> I *want* to have some of the things from GNU Smalltalk in Squeak.  I guess for
> now, it'll have to be limited to the things that people reimplement in a clean
> room, or leave unbundled in SM/SS/Universes (but then I have to worry about
> accidentally using those packages in my commercial applications).

I don't think so.  First of all because you don't have to worry about 
accidentally using LGPL packages.

As to crossbreeding, I'm all for it!  Make a list of things you'd like; 
if they are GPL some could be relicensed to LGPL.  Unfortunately, I must 
say that BSD/MIT/Apache is not on the radar.

> If GNU Smalltalk "sucked", as you suggest that I claim, I would *not* have
> bothered with *any* of this discussion.  Think about that for a moment, and
> you see it's the only logical conclusion.

You have a point.

Paolo