[Squeakfoundation]A Gentle Introduction to the Squeak Community

[goran.hultgren@bluefish.se]

Andreas.Raab@gmx.de wrote:
> > Andreas.Raab@gmx.de wrote:
> > > <quote>
> > > technically, Squeak isn't Open Source
> > > </quote>
> > 
> > Yes, Andreas - that is true.
> 
> Guys, please. Even if it may be technically correct that Squeak is not OSI
> approved and therefore not Open Source (tm) Software that's no way to phrase
> it. Just imagine what you would think if you read this. If that's the way

Oh, I wasn't talking about the phrasing - I thought you perhaps wasn't
aware of that SqueakL is not OSI Open Source (tm) approved. I agree that
the phrasing is bad for much the same (but not all) reasons already
stated by others in this thread.

> you're going to do marketing then good night. For starters change this into "not
> OSI approved" instead of "not Open Source" and if someone complains then make
> it "open source" (IIRC, then only "Open Source" is tm-ed). In fact, I would
> say "OSI approval pending".

Well, the last phrase I don't agree with - they have already said "NO".
So it is not pending - unless some of us are talking to Apple - but I
don't know anything about someone doing that?

Let me just say that many in the open source/free software world
actually care about these things so we shouldn't "downplay" this issue -
that is IMHO a bad move. But of course we should explain as best as we
can that SqueakL is very "free" (compare it with BSD/MIT etc) but that
it can not for a few reasons currently be branded as OpenSource (nor
Free Software as of FSF) but that those reasons in fact does not affect
most of us. And then we explain those reasons.

Again - do NOT underestimate the importance of these issues for many in
this "world".

regards, Göran