And while you are at it, explain to them that trademarking "Open 
Source", if they reallly have done something so dumb, is at least a 
moral violation of everything that "open source" is about.

Cheers,

Alan

------

At 12:16 AM +0100 2/10/02, Cees de Groot wrote:
>Noel J. Bergman <noel at devtech.com> said:
>>For all intents and purposes, Apple said "HERE, HAVE IT ... just don't ever
>>come back to us for remuneration."  With the exception of the Apple
>>protection clause and the export clause, what issues do you have with the
>>SqueakL?
>>
>For all practical purposes, the SqueakL is quite allright. The only really
>limitative clause (on the bitmap fonts) is void, so one (SqF) could re-license
>Squeak without that bit.
>
>However, if doesn't count as an OSD-compliant license. This has two setbacks:
>you cannot call it Open Source (AFAIK, that's a trademark), and you have to
>explain to everyone 'yes, it is not Open Source, but really you can use it for
>mostly everything you want'. That, plus the arguments that keep popping up,
>make a good case for seeing whether it is possible to do something about it.
>
>I'll take this up with OSI, as I think that SqF should strive to (re)license
>"canonical Squeak" under an OSD-compliant license. As soon as I have something
>back from them, I'll post here.
>
>Regards,
>
>Cees
>
>--
>Cees de Groot               http://www.cdegroot.com     <cg at cdegroot.com>
>GnuPG 1024D/E0989E8B 0016 F679 F38D 5946 4ECD  1986 F303 937F E098 9E8B


--