"Joshua 'Schwa' Gargus" <schwa at cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
> Because the term (capitalized or not) wasn't in common use before they
> coined it to differentiate it from Free Software.

I didn't realize it was the same people.  I wonder how many people do?


> Anyone from the Open Source or Free Software camp who becomes familiar
> with the workings of the Squeak community would agree that we operate
> in a manner consistent with the ideals that inspire them (share code,
> etc.)  However, a line in the sand needs to be drawn so that entities
> (might as well name them) like Microsoft cannot release code that
> meets the letter of their definition, but actually restricts the
> freedom of users.  Both OSI and FSF retain lawyers to make sure that
> such loopholes do not exist.

Good example switching it to Microsoft.  Still, I am very confident it
would be fine.  Is there something I don't know about?  The font and
indemnification and export clauses are nothing for someone trying to use
Squeak in practice.  The only trouble they've caused in the years Squeak
has been available, are for people trying to fit them under definitions
like OSI's or Debian's.  Squeak really is open source in every way
except the strict OSI definition.  What could Apple really do to someone
using Squeak?

OSI is being too strict in rejecting Squeak License.  Worse, they are
doing it in a dirty way.  When Debian describes software licenses, it is
very careful to distinguish general terms like "open" from specific
terms like "compliant with Debian's Guidelines".  OSI, on the other
hand, seems to be playing a political word game, much like FSF with
"free": they take a term and change it's meaning to something different
than what people expect.  Squeak and its website is just one case in
point of this -- you worry that businessmen will equate "open source"
and "OSI", but that hasn't even happened (yet?) among us technical
people.

More generally, isn't it wrong to tie the open source movement into an
institution?  An institution that several members of the community think
is making bad moves?  Why do we put up with this, guys?  It's already
widely accepted that you can be doing the free/open software kind of
thing without buying into FSF.  Are we now going to repeat the same saga
with OSI?


-Lex


PS -- The specificity of "object-oriented" *does* bother me -- it should
mean that there are objects floating around, not that you have classes
and inheritance.  Much worse is the treatment "type" has received.


PPS [ObSqueak] -- Terms are like classes, and their meaning is up to the
programmer.  Computers are a place to play pretend, and in Squeak, your
terms only have to be consistent within one image.  If I say a Tomato is
a Vegetable in my image, and yours says it is a Fruit, I don't care --
your image can bite my image.


PPPS -- The increasing communication between Squeak objects over the
network will change this.