[Squeakfoundation]Re: Sublicensing seems possible

[Daniel Vainsencher]

And the fact that the world doesn't want to buy iraqi oil doesn't limit
the iraqies, it just limits the world, right?

You don't want kids in schools to have Squeak preinstalled on their
computers, simply because it is part of DebianJr/DebianEdu/Debian
multimedia project (I can never remember their precise name)?

You don't want the hoards of people that contribute their programming
time to free software in stiffer/poorer languages to feel free and safe
to contribute Squeak code?

I do.

Daniel

Gary Fisher <gafisher at sprynet.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cees de Groot" <cg at cdegroot.com>
> To: "Discussing the Squeak Foundation"
> <squeakfoundation at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 4:08 AM
> Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]Re: Sublicensing seems possible
> 
> > . . . but they are willing to discuss other ways out of the
> > 'not OSI/DFSG compatible' impasse.
> 
> Pardon my asking, but in what way is this an 'impasse' from the Squeak side?
> The fact Debian can't include Squeak in their distributions limits Debian,
> not Squeak (which is in fact regularly released in deb packages) while the
> lack of OSI Certification is far from the biggest hurdle to wide adoption of
> Squeak/Smalltalk.  Stripping Squeak just to get a nod from these outside
> standards groups -- which appear themselves to have no particular, specific
> interest in adding Squeak to their own lists -- seems a bit
> self-destructive.  The current license is incredibly generous; why rock the
> boat?
> 
> Gary Fisher
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> Squeakfoundation at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation