cg at cdegroot.com (Cees de Groot) wrote:

> >From the two examples above, it is clear that the Squeak License doesn't
> pass the Open Source Institute's Open Source Definition, not the Free
> Software Foundation's definition of Free Software, so it seems to be
> inappropriate at the moment to label Squeak as open source.

Why do these guys get to define "open source"?  In the common parlance,
you don't need as many restrictions as they require.  If you can distribute
the program widely, if you have all the source code, and if you can modify the source
code and redistribute it, then the program is open source.  It's not
necessarily OSI-approved or FSF-approved, but this says more about those
institutions than about Squeak.


-Lex