ask for APSL? for real this time?
jp1660 at att.net
Thu Jan 8 05:46:10 UTC 2004
Like Bert mentioned, take a look at squeak's fromt page on SF. Its says,
NOTE: This project IS NOT licensed under an Open Source license. Please
read the special
notice regarding this project.
This is only the first step that SF has taken. I was also told that
projects may be asked to leave in the future. This current change in attitude
towards projects started about six months , although the policy was changed in
2002 and seems to be getting more strict as time goes on. Don't worry,
projects listed will get the bad news, SF is actively working on it.
>Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=sha1; boundary=Apple-Mail-12-739721189;
>Very strange, John.
>Squeak VM has been a sourceforge project since May 2000,
>SqueakNOS since March 2000.
>A recent project for Squeak utilities was registered in July 2003.
>In short, there are at least eight presently registered Squeak
>projects, including the principal distribution of the source VM source
>What made your project so special?
>I suppose the license isn't for everyone, and there are a few folks who
>would rather die than work on the best free Smalltalk implementation
>around. But what the heck, that also isn't a reason for trying to do
>We now know that you feel Squeak-L isn't inadequate, and that you claim
>sourceforge rejected you (while apparently accepting others without
>incident). What would you consider to be satisfactory?
>On Jan 7, 2004, at 1:22 AM, John Pfersich wrote:
>> Well, I tried to register a project at SourceForge that was to be
>> based on
>> and they rejected it because they don't consider Squeak to be open
>> I don't
>> consider the current license to be adequate in any shape or form. And
>> kind of attitude, I'll not continue its development in Squeak.
>>> The only benefit of the perennial licensing discussion is that it
>>> that Squeak continues to attract dreamers. Unfortunately, it also
>>> burns up
>>> bandwidth (cheap) and enthusiasm (priceless) while accomplishing
>>> little of
>>> value that couldn't be better dealt with via FAQ.
>>> Rather than opening the can of worms which could ensue in reopening
>>> license, which would be likely to result in more rather than less
>>> provisions given recent efforts to turn IP into revenue, the best way
>>> to get
>>> Squeak onto desktops (not just menus) is to promote its capabilities
>>> in such
>>> a way that potential users feel a need for it.
>>> To do that we need, first, to build and package readily usable and
>>> applications (not just demonstrations) for various target markets,
>>> and then
>>> to make them known to those markets through articles in their
>>> presentations at their conferences, contact on their websites and so
>>> on --
>>> exactly the same as any other competitor for mindshare (and exactly
>>> what Alan
>>> and others leading the effort have been doing). An educator or
>>> manager is
>>> far more likely to use a tool they've read about or seen, even if it
>>> takes a
>>> few clicks to install it, than some otherwise anonymous item on a
>>> Debian CD.
>>> The current license is more than adequate.
>>> Gary Fisher
>>> On Tuesday 06 January 2004 04:08, Cees de Groot wrote:
>>>> I have asked for that about a year ago and got a clear and resounding
>>>> 'No' as an answer from Apple.
>>> . . .
>>>> Personally, I think that any time spent talking about the SqueakL is
>>>> time lost. If you really want to include Squeak in Debian, for
>>>> make that fetch/install script, wrap up a .deb for it, and submit it
>>>> Debian. I give you a 90% chance it will be accepted, and a 0.1%
>>>> that you will ever get Squeak under a different license.
>Attachment converted: Mac HD2:smime.p7s 5 (????/----) (00068F6E)
More information about the Squeak-dev