Travis Griggs <tgriggs at keyww.com> wrote:
[SNIP]
> As a Squeak list lurker... I find it entertaining that there is 
> widespread recognition that there has got to be a "better way" than the 
> monolithic image, but at the same time there is a drive to apply a 
> monolegal license. Ironic, don't you think? Squeak should just be a 
> distro. Otherwise, you're going to be having flamewars about whether it 
> should be called SmaCC or Squeak/SmaCC (aka Linux vs. GNU/Linux).

I don't agree. The current discussion is more like the DFSG in Debian
(Debian Free Software Guideline). We aren't talking about Squeak
packages in general - those can be under whichever license they like -
see SM.

We are talking about "Squeak official". Our common ground. The artefact
that we maintain together. I would say it is very natural to keep that
under ONE license - all other similar projects I have seen do the same.
And currently we are forced to Squeak-L for that, even if most of us
would like to move in a more BSDish direction.

The distros (Squeak official + a lot of other packages) are probably
soon appearing too. (we need a better SM first).

regards, Göran