Debian and SqueakL revisited again...(was Re: Debian source package)
Andrew C. Greenberg
werdna at mucow.com
Wed Oct 24 18:38:15 UTC 2001
> But the module system will also probably fulfill the role of something
> like CPAN where people publish their apps and libraries not necessarily
> meaning that they are defined as being "base Squeak" modules. And you
> should be able to publish something that you have built without being
> forced to use Squeak-L2, right? :-)
Except in particular cases, you have never been "forced to use" any
license when deriving work from other people's IP, particularly in
Squeak. I see no reason, however, to encourage use of anything other
than Squeak-L, modular or otherwise. Ultimately, mixed licensing will
likely corrupt a monolithic image and make it either unusable or
unpublishable and that is, IMHO, a bad thing.
> Could I publish my GPLed code as a Squeak project in for example .pr
> form and include source with that and then bundle that with a Squeak VM
> and a small "boot" image that loads the .pr when started? (More or less
> mimicking how the Java guys do it).
Not according to RMS. Certainly, any image derived from a mixed use
will be unpublishable. Such is the nature of FSF's notion of "free"
> If we could consider loading a .pr or ImageSegment as being "linking"
> then it should be ok, right?
It should be. RMS thinks not.
> I would just like to have an answer when a GPL-advocate says he can't
> use Squeak for his app since it is not "GPL-compatible"...
Answer, he is correct, at least as RMS understand the GPL. Squeak-L is
not GPL-compatible, and vice-versa. Reasonable lawyers may differ with
RMS on his interpretations of the agreement.
>> All we really need is the will to do it. In the meanwhile, the failure
>> to include Squeak in Debian reflects, to me, more of a weakness in
>> Debian policies than in Squeak-L, and is a shame. But in preparation
> Could you elaborate on that? I mean, do you think they are "wrong" in
> their argument or that they just are too "picky"?
Clearly, they are free to add or refuse whatever they want. I think
that they are wrong to refuse to publish Squeak-L for the reasons they
choose. I'm a big fan of open source and of some, but not all, of the
tenents of the free software movement. However, ideology has overcome
reason, so far as I am concerned. I do not share RMS' definition of
free which, for example in the case of software based on a monolithic
late-bound program image, makes it impossible to have mixed and non-
In my view, such software isn't free in the common, linguistic sense of
the word, but hopelessly and unrationally over-restricted. No amount of
big-brotheresque double-talk to redefine the ordinary use of the word
suffices as argument to the contrary.
As RMS freely admits, he is no advocate of open source software, if it
isn't "RMS-free." Likewise, I am no advocate of "RMS-free" software if
it isn't, in fact, free.
More information about the Squeak-dev