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
|