On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu.org> wrote:
>
>  >>> Because he is trying to appeal to a broader audience than appeals to
>  >>> LGPL within the Squeak community.
>  >
>  > Paolo> Because the Squeak community does not want to read licenses and prefers to
>  > Paolo> remain hostage of FUD.
>  >
>  > I'm not sure at this point where the greater FUD lies.
>  >
>  > Do you agree that LPGL is *more* restrictive than MIT?
>
>  Of course.
>
>  I don't mean FUD as in "FUD talk", but the Squeak community's own fears,
>  uncertainties and doubts about the applicability of the LGPL.
>
>  Paolo

These fears, uncertainties and doubts are quite reasonable.  As
Andreas mentioned [1] and I alluded to [2], in the U.S. (at least) you
can not be sure how a seemingly clear license (much less a complex
one, like the LGPL) will actually be applied until it actually is.  In
court.  Your personal (and unqualified!) interpretation means
absolutely nothing, so I would appreciate it if you would stop talking
as if this is somehow a solved issue.  You could cause some
unsuspecting individual to put themselves at risk of litigation.

[1] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2008-March/127021.html
[2] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2008-March/126894.html