stephane ducasse wrote:
Mariano
Well I do not know anybody writing code under LGPL in Smalltalk.
So this is an issue. I think that having a license mess will not help. So we do not care about the fact that the project
use a apporved license, we care that people can/will use it afterwards.
So LGPL is not a good idea.
GLORP is LGPL, with a subsequently added explanation of how the the
license should be interpreted in a Smalltalk context. INAL, but this
still seems muddy, since it's unclear whether or not the author's
interpretation and intentions would override the actual license, which
is LGPL. Or, is it the case that the actual license is LGPL + author
addendums - gah, another license mess.
_______________________________________________
help-smalltalk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-smalltalk
