On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 01:35:01AM -0500, Elzbieta Chludzinska wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 18, 2001 at 01:45:24PM -0500, Kevin Fisher wrote: [MISATTRIBUTED]
> >The Squeak license is also "quite free" and I don't see any show stoppers
> >with it (but IANAL).  If it were one of the standard open source licenses
> >(FreeBSD, LGPL, GPL, X11, etc.), people would have to think about it less.
> >That's one advantage of using a standard license: people know it and,
> >more importantly, their legal department knows it.  The way it is,
> >people will ask for clarification, but I don't see a big debate erupting.
> 
> We plan to propose using Squeak for a significant project (for my company) and 
> have advertised it as "open source: what Linux is to Unix, Squeak is to 
> Smalltalk".  What is the significant difference between Squeak's "open source" 
> agreement and Linux's (GPL)?

I wrote the above paragraph, not Kevin.  Meanwhile, I have come across
the "FAQ: Licenses" on the swiki at http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/933
Andrew Greenberg also has a long discussion at this link:
http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/934

I think adopting one of the "standard" licenses would be better than
what Squeak has now, but since I'm using it only for experimentation,
I don't really care much myself.  If I was considering using it commercially
or for an open source project, I would probably talk to a lawyer first.

Cheers,
Thomas.