Yes, Squeak is free.  It is freer than GNU software.  It has been open
source for longer than OSI existed.

Lots of info is on the swiki; feel free to elaborate if you know
anything more.

	http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/159


Debian does not include Squeak because they cannot make a decision about
it, and they are defaulting to exclusion.  Despite being a Debian
Developer for years, I see no way to make progress when any theorist in
their armchair can dream up some ridiculous hypothetical situation and
say "nya nya can't hear you" for as long as they care to bother.  It
seems that the only practical way into Debian right now is to license
the software under some license that they have already approved.  For
examples: the GNU documentation license, the Mozilla license, and the
freest Creative Commons licenses, all do not appear sufficiently "Debian
free" for Debian.  By their own standards, they should at least include
Squeak in the "non-free" branch, but they cannot make up their minds
even to do this.  Debian needs a new process for making these
decisions--heck, *any* process for making these decisions--but that too
large of an effort for me to have found time to work on.


No one knows why OSI has not approved Squeak's license.  Different
people give different answers, and no one from OSI has posted anything. 
(And incidentally, why does OSI get so much deference in drawing the
line for open source software?  The OSI list of requirements doesn't
actually look so great to me, not least because it is awefully long.)


To give you an idea how silly this all is, let me close with a few
examples of legal issues elsewhere in the open source world.



First, a practical issue: Wikipedia, the free online wiki-format
encyclopedia, has entirely changed their license without consulting all
the existing contributors.  That would be equivalent to us saying "okay,
Squeak is henceforth MIT-licensed" even though we didn't ask Apple about
it.  Was this legal?  Surely not.  What are the ramifications?  Nobody
knows.  Does anyone care?  Outside of pure theorists, no one seems to. 
Wikipedia content is cited all over the place, quite probably outside
the terms even of its license in some cases.

Here's a theory issue.  In many countries of Europe, someone cannot use
material you have copyrighted in a way that messes up your artistic
integrity (or some such legal verbiage).  It does not matter if you sign
a contract in triplicate saying that someone may use your work
arbitrarily-- it's a right you cannot give away.  Given this, is it
possible for a citizen of such a country to participate in open source
software?  Open source software is supposed to be truly given away; you
shouldn't be able to sue people later because you dislike what they did
with it.  It seems that the very definition of open source needs
redefining if we really want to interact with the  many people in such
countries.  In the meantime, open source licenses are claiming to offer
more freedom than some authors are legally able to give.

Finally, how does international trade law fit in with open source
software?  Most countries have some sort of trade restrictions, and some
have restrictions on the trade of software.  Is one breaking the law if
you post a crypographic program an a web site that is accessible in
Cuba?  Is it legal to give a copy of the program to someone you think
might post it on such a site?  Squeak-L, to be safe, says that you may
not do such things at all.  Other open source licenses stick their head
in the sand and pretend the issue does not exist.  Which way is better? 
Practically, there seems to be little difference: they are different
approaches to covering one's tail.  Theoretically, I'd put my money on
Squeak-L getting it right.  Squeak-L was drafted by professional lawyers
of a major IT company, and thus seems more likely to me to get the
little details correct than the kind of people who drafted most other
open source licenses.


Bah.  The only "problem" with Squeak-L is that it's different.  Most of
the law and most of the court cases have yet to happen, and everyone is
just blowing bits around until they do.  The right way to write an open
source license in ten or twenty years will be different from any license
that is being used today.


IANAL.


Lex