On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 02:01, Andrew C. Greenberg wrote:
> At any rate, the likelihood of consensus of 
> adopting a GPL license is virtually nil. 

Yup. But I don't think that Daniel was suggesting that. The DFSG
(http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html#guidelines) is a simple set
of requirements that most 'open source', 'free software', ... licenses
pass. SqueakL seems to fail on points 1 and 5, and the indemnification
clause made Debian unhappy to distribute Squeak at all (even in the
'non-free' section).

A cleaned-up SqueakL would clearly pass the DFSG.

> Most of us just don't buy that Squeak's audience is materially limited 
> by the present license.  

Not limited as in 'people who happen to stumble over Squeak are able to
use it'. However, due to the fact that wide-spread distribution is
limited, the number of people who happen to stubmle over Squeak is
limited. That's, IMHO, the whole idea of making Squeak open source -
making sure that more people are going to use it. 

> While all that would be 
> welcome, I would NOT agree to compromises of the legal stability of the 
> system to achieve it.
> 
I agree 100%.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20030327/99001d96/attachment.pgp