Hello Göran and Cees,

-- quote

Message: 16
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:57:17 +0100 
Subject: Re: Proposal for TWO official releases
To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
From: goran.hultgren at bluefish.se
Reply-To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org

cg at cdegroot.com (Cees de Groot) wrote:
> Maarten Maartensz <maartens at xs4all.nl> said:
> >- To maintain TWO releases as a standard policy:
> >    A. Developers' release 
> >    B. Learning & Teaching release
> >
> The idea I vented a couple of times, and that met with only little
resistance
> is to have SqF produce a "core release", and other groups around SqF, in a
> true chaordic manner, produce their own releases from there:
> - Learning & Teaching release, by SqueakLand;
> - Developer's release, from the SourceForge SqueakDevEnv project;
> - Business Release, from the 250 people IBM Squeak eBusiness group;
> - ...
[SNIP]

Different "configurations" of Squeak will become much more a reality
when modules are starting to work as intended. In the modules model a
"configuration" of Squeak - what you call a release - will be just
another module.

Se keep that dream alive! :-)

You also mentioned some form of portal for finding Squeak stuff - I have
some code in the works. I call it SqueakMap and will post what I have
shortly. It's an apt-get kindof-thingy (as in Debian) which maintains a
local mirror (using incremental gzipped updates - very low bandwidth) of
a central module meta-card-repository. It's pretty nice actually.

> >Finally (somewhat) in the present context: I agree with Lex Spoon's recent
> >remark to the effect that "open source" is a more comprehensive term than
> >the OpenSource.org admits, and that Squeak IS patently open source in
> >coming with its source code. 
> I agree, to an extent (see below). For all practical purposes, you can
> use Squeak just like you can use any other open source package.
> 
> >I think it unwise to restrict the meaning of
> >"open source" to what gets the blessing of the OpenSource.org: The basic
> >principle of open source applications, after all, is that one gets to see
> >and manipulate all the code of the application and not whether
> >OpenSource.org or Richard Stallmann are willing to endorse it as open
> >source in THEIR preferred senses.
> >
> However, there's a very good reason for this. If something is called Open
> Source, you know quite precisely what you can do with it. Similarly, if the
> FSF says "this and this is what we call free software", you know quite well
> the rights you have when something is called "free software". It is
important
> to keep these definitions as clean as possible, if alone to help us battling
> fringe cases (like what currently happens, mandatory pop-up ads in software
> that's otherwise licensed as open source). 
> 
> Sadly, the Squeak License limits the rights of the licensees in ways that
are
> incompatible both with the definition of "open source" as with the
definition
> of "free software". Until that situation is alleviated (and if only to
keep it
> on the agenda), it is probably wiser *not* to describe Squeak as "open
source"
> (with or without the caps). 
> 
> My proposal would be for Squeak.org to say "Squeak is almost open source",
> where "almost open source" would be a link to a page that explains some
of the
> issues with the Squeak License. 

I agree fully with Cees. The waters are already pretty muddled out there
- let's not add to that by misusing the term "open source"/"OpenSource".
It would actually border on deceiving people I think.

Squeak is NOT free software as defined by FSF.
Squeak is NOT open source software as defined by OSI.
Squeak is NOT ok for inclusion in Debian along their DFSG.

Sure - it's awfully close to all three - I agree. But let's say that
then.

regards, Göran

-- unquote

Well: As regards the proposal it seems it is mostly dreams sofar, and
apparently must wait till some coordinated SqueakFoundation is effectively
working. Meanwhile, I am glad to hear of similar dreams.

As regards "open source" and specifically Cees and Göran's:

> My proposal would be for Squeak.org to say "Squeak is almost open source",
> where "almost open source" would be a link to a page that explains some
of the
> issues with the Squeak License. 

No, that seems not a good idea to me:

First, in general one should not use words in specific legal senses, except
in court and in legalistic prose.
Second, I'd say that - as far as I can see - Squeak is in intent and in
practice, according to common understanding, an excellent example of free
software (gratis) and of open source (full source included).
Third, as Göran possibly rightly remarks, in specific refined senses of
"free software" and "open source", Squeak is or may not fully qualify - by
the wordings or interpretations of FSF, OSI and DFSG (which may or may not
be mine, and have their special reasons and ends, as Squeak's licence arose
for specific reasons).

My own conclusion is more simply that Squeak IS free software and IS open
source - AND comes currently with its own special licence, which indeed
does deserve explanation. 

Also, saying that Squeak IS free software and IS open source seems not to
be deceptive: It seems rather ridiculous to have to say - for legalistic
reasons, moreover - that Squeak IS "awfully close" to being free software
and open source ... but not, alas, as defined by FSF and OS, and
"therefore" cannot be rightly called "free software" or "open source". This
seems a little bit too much like saying Squeak cannot be called
"revolutionary technology" as MS is not pleased to call it so. After all,
it is the facts, the intent and the practice (free, open) that matters for
these terms to be apt.

But what is true is that Squeak's special licence should be explained, as a
standard part of official images, and should  be explained historically
(how it came about) and in intent (what it is meant to achieve) and as
regards legal implications (what the licence probably means in courts -
which will differ in different states). 

In any case, it sounds a bit silly to me to have to say that Squeak is
wholly gratis software (but not "free") with fully disclosed source (but
not "open"). Also, this surely does not clarify matters as much as simply
saying that Squeak is a fine and beautiful example of free software and
open source AND that it comes, for historical reasons, with its own special
license.

Regards,

Maarten.








------------------------------------------
Maarten Maartensz. Homepage:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~maartens/ 
------------------------------------------