Debian and SqueakL revisited again...(was Re: Debian source package)

Lex Spoon lex at cc.gatech.edu
Fri Oct 26 00:19:50 UTC 2001


> > 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-
> GPL'd software.
> 

The main problem Debian has with Squeak-L is the indemnification clause,
not the "non-free" parts.  Would you not be worried yourself about
agreeing to such a clause?

Also, by the way, Debian certianly doesn't insist on GPL, and nor is it
headed or even particularly involved with RMS.  It does have its *own*
definition of "free", but it's not the same as GNU's:

	http://www.debian.org/intro/free



-Lex




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list