Derek Neighbors wrote:
It would never be an exact port as Smalltalk is quite different from C++/Java. The code size would shrink by magnitudes.Jimmie Houchin said:Copyrighted works are copyrighted works. I guess it might be best put,If I read the Sword/JSword source code and from that design/information write (port would be accurate?) classes, methods, etc. in Squeak to process Sword Modules would I be obligated to also use the GPL?
think of it as writing a "research paper". If you plagarize and you dont
use the GPL you could be confronted by the author of the original work. If you put in your own words you are ok. :) That might be making it too
simple, but in essence you are granted the right to study the code under
the GPL. You may not however plagarize the code and "distribute" the
modified version without being bound by the terms of the GPL. Certainly
you could mimic functionality and be ok. As most GPL programs wouldn't
exist today if they were not mimicking some proprietary program in which
they are modeled after.
Even if I could technically not be bound by the GPL, I could not violate the spirit of the author's wishes. I will either have authorization or not proceed.
Smalltalk is/isn't the issue per se. Squeak is not and will not ever be GPL. The current license is via Apple. The Squeak community is for more free and open than the GPL and if Squeak were ever relicensed it would be more MIT/BSD like than GPL. It's much more of a use, enjoy, just don't blame us community.The reason I ask is because of the viral nature of the GPL. GPL is not appropriate for any non-GPLed Smalltalk. Smalltalk source is in an image. All of it is linked by GPL definition. Any use of GPL code in a Smalltalk image compels the entire image to be GPLed. This is not possible.I am not a Smalltalk expert, but I if "Smalltalk" is the issue why not use "GNU Smalltalk"? I believe there may even now be a GPL version of Squeak.( http://www.smalltalk.org/versions/GNUSmalltalk.html )
GNUSmalltalk is not an option. It is not crossplatform. It doesn't run on Windows, Mac, BeOS, Zaurus, iPaq, WinCE, etc... Also GNUSmalltalk if I remember correctly is what is called headless in the Smalltalk community. This means it has no GUI. That makes it no good for a frontend.
I have no desire to see Sword under a MIT or BSD license. I have no problem with people who use Sword code being obligated to share and return to the community what they have based upon that code.I hate to contribute to the proliferation of licenses. But is Crosswire open to such a variance for image based systems like Smalltalk? ie: a dual license? I do not necessarily no which license would be most appropriate for Crosswire. The Squeak License makes no obligations for use of source. It is more close to the MIT or BSD licenses.I think changing SWORD to an MIT or BSD license is a bad idea. As we have seen on this very list the savage greed (or whatever you want to call that display) of the "online bible" folks. People truly can have other than the kingdoms work as a potential agenda and an MIT/BSD license would let them run with that much more than the GPL would.
I have no such problem with similar obligations or responsibilities coming with any code I write based on Sword sources. In other words any modifications to my code would have to be offered under equal terms and any code which inherits would be so obligated. Code which merely is used by composition (like linking) would not be so obligated.
The problem is merely that with the GPL (and LGPL) it affects the entire Squeak image. It is like installing Sword on a Windows machine and thereby making everything on your computer GPL. Squeak/Smalltalk has no external source code. All Squeak source code is inside of the Squeak image. You can think of the image as a filesystem. To the OS it looks like a single file. To Squeak it is 1000s of objects.
If GPL code gets inside that single file (image) it impacts the entire file (image). That is probably impossible as no one has the authority to do such. All the contributors who have code in the image would have to either agree or have their code removed.
Linking to is not a problem. I can use Sword libs which are external to Squeak. I just can't have GPL code within Squeak.Thanks for any help in understanding my options.What is RMS' solution for Squeak applications that what to be GPL'd? I would imagine this could be solved with a slight modification that says its ok to "link" to smalltalk(squeak). If the SWORD team were willing to add this one liner to the license, they would still be afforded all the goodness of the GPL but allow smalltalk users to make variations. This was for example the solution RMS offered to the Qt library problems before they changed their license.
If RMS. et al. were to view the Smalltalk image as a filesystem and apply licenses to only packages/modules within that image associated with the license of its choice. This would not be problem.
I can with download all kinds of software for Squeak with different licenses. All if it goes into the image to be used.
I hope what I've said makes sense.
Thanks.
Jimmie Houchin
_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
