"Lex Spoon" lex@cc.gatech.edu wrote:
goran.hultgren@bluefish.se wrote:
Btw - perhaps we should change the wording "Squeak comes under an open source license" to perhaps "Squeak has a very liberal license" or something like that. I think the last word on OpenSource certification was that SqueakL is NOT OpenSource.
It's not Debian compliant. But Debian has stricter requirements than merely being open source. I don't know of any reason why Squeak wouldn't be considered "open source", especially using lower case letters.
This time I wasn't referring to the problem with Debian but to the discussions about SqueakL that has been done on OSI mailinglist for certification. It was said quite clearly (IIRC) that SqueakL is NOT OpenSource.
Just using small letters... Nah. That feels a tad like "pretending". I would write something else.
regards, Göran
goran.hultgren@bluefish.se wrote:
This time I wasn't referring to the problem with Debian but to the discussions about SqueakL that has been done on OSI mailinglist for certification. It was said quite clearly (IIRC) that SqueakL is NOT OpenSource.
Just using small letters... Nah. That feels a tad like "pretending". I would write something else.
Frankly, saying that SqueakL isn't "open source" seems ridiculous. Can you recall what the complaint was? Everyone can download all the source to Squeak, modify it, and redistribute modified versions. In fact, it takes some effort to distribute anything written in Squeak (including Squeak itself), *without* including the source code. If that's not open source, then what is?
-Lex
Lex Spoon lex@cc.gatech.edu said:
Frankly, saying that SqueakL isn't "open source" seems ridiculous. Can you recall what the complaint was? Everyone can download all the source to Squeak, modify it, and redistribute modified versions. In fact, it takes some effort to distribute anything written in Squeak (including Squeak itself), *without* including the source code. If that's not open source, then what is?
Among others, I can't modify and pass on everything - for example, I'm not allowed to pass on the bitmap fonts without including all of Squeak; furthermore, I'm not free to pass it on to anyone I like, because the license requires me to adhere to some foreign country's export regulations. That may not make a difference for you (because as a US citizen, you are already bound by your government's laws), but it does make a difference for the other 96% of the world's population.
Open Source is *not* just being able to peek at the source. For example, even though for all practical purposes qmail by Dan Bernstein rocks, it is definitely *not* Open Source because it has very strict limitations on redistribution of source code (and as Open Source is about free speech, the amount of redistribution allowed is critically important for determining whether something is open source or not).
From the two examples above, it is clear that the Squeak License doesn't
pass the Open Source Institute's Open Source Definition, not the Free Software Foundation's definition of Free Software, so it seems to be inappropriate at the moment to label Squeak as open source. It's a pity, because it is mostly a technicality and quite likely not what Apple meant, but you want to be careful with language that is about legal things, so I think that Squeak should not be recommended as open source.
cg@cdegroot.com (Cees de Groot) wrote:
From the two examples above, it is clear that the Squeak License doesn't
pass the Open Source Institute's Open Source Definition, not the Free Software Foundation's definition of Free Software, so it seems to be inappropriate at the moment to label Squeak as open source.
Why do these guys get to define "open source"? In the common parlance, you don't need as many restrictions as they require. If you can distribute the program widely, if you have all the source code, and if you can modify the source code and redistribute it, then the program is open source. It's not necessarily OSI-approved or FSF-approved, but this says more about those institutions than about Squeak.
-Lex
On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 02:32:59AM -0400, Lex Spoon wrote:
cg@cdegroot.com (Cees de Groot) wrote:
From the two examples above, it is clear that the Squeak License doesn't
pass the Open Source Institute's Open Source Definition, not the Free Software Foundation's definition of Free Software, so it seems to be inappropriate at the moment to label Squeak as open source.
Why do these guys get to define "open source"?
Because the term (capitalized or not) wasn't in common use before they coined it to differentiate it from Free Software.
Compare to a C++ person saying, "Why do these Smalltalk guys get to define object-oriented?" :-)
In the common parlance, you don't need as many restrictions as they require. If you can distribute the program widely, if you have all the source code, and if you can modify the source code and redistribute it, then the program is open source. It's not necessarily OSI-approved or FSF-approved, but this says more about those institutions than about Squeak.
No, it says more about the current legal climate. Organizations concerned with software freedom retain lawyers to ensure that the definitions that they come up with are legally defensible, and that they don't have loopholes that malicious entities can exploit to call their strings-attached software Open or Free.
Anyone from the Open Source or Free Software camp who becomes familiar with the workings of the Squeak community would agree that we operate in a manner consistent with the ideals that inspire them (share code, etc.) However, a line in the sand needs to be drawn so that entities (might as well name them) like Microsoft cannot release code that meets the letter of their definition, but actually restricts the freedom of users. Both OSI and FSF retain lawyers to make sure that such loopholes do not exist.
What if Microsoft was identified in Squeak's license instead of Apple, and Squeak became a viable competitor to their future software offerings for, say, media authoring. Are you confident that their lawyers couldn't find a way to twist the wording of the SqueakL? Do you think that their lawyers wouldn't be at our throats instantly?
Check on Slashdot for a discussion of the license that the latest version of Lucent's Plan 9 has just been released under. In my opinion, it is a good thing that the Open Source Definition excludes sorta-free licenses like this one.
Joshua
-Lex
"Joshua 'Schwa' Gargus" schwa@cc.gatech.edu wrote:
Because the term (capitalized or not) wasn't in common use before they coined it to differentiate it from Free Software.
I didn't realize it was the same people. I wonder how many people do?
Anyone from the Open Source or Free Software camp who becomes familiar with the workings of the Squeak community would agree that we operate in a manner consistent with the ideals that inspire them (share code, etc.) However, a line in the sand needs to be drawn so that entities (might as well name them) like Microsoft cannot release code that meets the letter of their definition, but actually restricts the freedom of users. Both OSI and FSF retain lawyers to make sure that such loopholes do not exist.
Good example switching it to Microsoft. Still, I am very confident it would be fine. Is there something I don't know about? The font and indemnification and export clauses are nothing for someone trying to use Squeak in practice. The only trouble they've caused in the years Squeak has been available, are for people trying to fit them under definitions like OSI's or Debian's. Squeak really is open source in every way except the strict OSI definition. What could Apple really do to someone using Squeak?
OSI is being too strict in rejecting Squeak License. Worse, they are doing it in a dirty way. When Debian describes software licenses, it is very careful to distinguish general terms like "open" from specific terms like "compliant with Debian's Guidelines". OSI, on the other hand, seems to be playing a political word game, much like FSF with "free": they take a term and change it's meaning to something different than what people expect. Squeak and its website is just one case in point of this -- you worry that businessmen will equate "open source" and "OSI", but that hasn't even happened (yet?) among us technical people.
More generally, isn't it wrong to tie the open source movement into an institution? An institution that several members of the community think is making bad moves? Why do we put up with this, guys? It's already widely accepted that you can be doing the free/open software kind of thing without buying into FSF. Are we now going to repeat the same saga with OSI?
-Lex
PS -- The specificity of "object-oriented" *does* bother me -- it should mean that there are objects floating around, not that you have classes and inheritance. Much worse is the treatment "type" has received.
PPS [ObSqueak] -- Terms are like classes, and their meaning is up to the programmer. Computers are a place to play pretend, and in Squeak, your terms only have to be consistent within one image. If I say a Tomato is a Vegetable in my image, and yours says it is a Fruit, I don't care -- your image can bite my image.
PPPS -- The increasing communication between Squeak objects over the network will change this.
Hi Lex and all!
Quoting Lex Spoon lex@cc.gatech.edu: [SNIP]
OSI is being too strict in rejecting Squeak License. Worse, they are doing it in a dirty way. When Debian describes software licenses, it is very careful to distinguish general terms like "open" from specific terms like "compliant with Debian's Guidelines". OSI, on the other hand, seems to be playing a political word game, much like FSF with "free": they take a term and change it's meaning to something different than what people expect. Squeak and its website is just one case in point of this -- you worry that businessmen will equate "open source" and "OSI", but that hasn't even happened (yet?) among us technical people.
Personally I don't worry about businessmen. Businessmen would probably like the current wording without wondering much more. I care about developers.
More generally, isn't it wrong to tie the open source movement into an institution? An institution that several members of the community think is making bad moves? Why do we put up with this, guys? It's already
Yes, that might be wrong. But it's not really up to us to change it.
widely accepted that you can be doing the free/open software kind of thing without buying into FSF. Are we now going to repeat the same saga with OSI?
Hehe, I don't know. Really, I like a lot of your points.
But I still think it (the phrase on Squeak.org) should either be written differently - or, if people really insist on keeping the current phrase "Squeak is open source." then IMHO it should be accompanied with an explanation of FACTS.
I just don't want people to be confused or draw incorrect conclusions or in some way get the impression that we are trying to push Squeak as something it is not.
All this may sound silly to a lot of you but there are lots of developers with strong opinions on these things.
In short: I just want to minimize any misconceptions. Currently people could mistakenly get the impression that Squeak is OSI OpenSource. Why don't we just fix that in what ever way, I don't care.
I again ask - why should we NOT clarify this?
regards, Göran
PS. I am dropping this thread unless that upsets anyone, I never thought there would be such a discussion over clarifying simple plain facts. DS
Göran Hultgren, goran.hultgren@bluefish.se GSM: +46 70 3933950, http://www.bluefish.se "Department of Redundancy department." -- ThinkGeek
On Mon, 29 Apr 2002, Göran Hultgren wrote:
[...] But I still think it (the phrase on Squeak.org) should either be written differently - or, if people really insist on keeping the current phrase "Squeak is open source." then IMHO it should be accompanied with an explanation of FACTS. [...]
Actually, the current wording is "Squeak comes under an open source license, meaning that you can download and use it for free."
This is only the intro page. All the detail is in the "About" page, including an explanation of the license terms.
All this may sound silly to a lot of you [...]
Indeed. I'm glad you acknowledge that ;-)
-- Bert
Lex Spoon lex@cc.gatech.edu said:
OSI is being too strict in rejecting Squeak License. Worse, they are doing it in a dirty way. When Debian describes software licenses, it is very careful to distinguish general terms like "open" from specific terms like "compliant with Debian's Guidelines". OSI, on the other hand, seems to be playing a political word game, much like FSF with "free": they take a term and change it's meaning to something different than what people expect. Squeak and its website is just one case in point of this -- you worry that businessmen will equate "open source" and "OSI", but that hasn't even happened (yet?) among us technical people.
Well, the Swiki specificially talks about "Open Source", which most (who are informed) would take to mean "OSD-compliant".
You seem to be thinking that "free software" as a term existed before the FSF used it, and similarly that "open source" as a term existed before (who?) coined it. In both cases, I think you'll find that they really came up with these terms themselves, and they have been very careful to define what falls under the term or not.
Again, there is no legal obligation to stick with the OSD meaning of the term "open source". However, I think there's a moral obligation - both the FSF and the OSI have done an awful lot of work to bring the open source/free software movement to where it is today, and they deserve respect; one way to show respect is to work with their definitions of their invented terms that explain what their core business is about.
Second, there is the more utilitarian argument that to show that you are an open source community member in good standing, you should not play fast and loose with the terms; it is important not to allow dilution of the term "open source" in much the same way as it is important for a trademark holder to go after any possible act that may cause dilution - there are many organizations out there who would like to ride the open source wave but would also like to avoid paying their dues to the community, and when we ('we' as a bunch of guys who are clearly on the right side of things) start diluting the term ourselves, we cannot blame all sort of sleazy types to do the same.
Lex Spoon lex@cc.gatech.edu said:
you worry that businessmen will equate "open source" and "OSI", but that hasn't even happened (yet?) among us technical people.
Hi all, I'm Mark Miller, and I run an open source project over at http://www.erights.org .
Lex, my perception is that this has indeed happened among both technical and business folks.
I would also argue that this is a good thing, but that's a separate matter. Briefly, the term "open source" is a line in the sand. If the term weren't made institutionally stable somehow, then interests on one side of the slippery slope would rapidly dilute all meaning out of it. I was at a weird closed (!?!) meeting where Bill Joy was trying to sell various leaders of the open source community on the acceptability of the ancestor of SCSL. If OSD hadn't pinned down a set of clear criteria, Bill Joy would have simply trumpeted this license as "open source" and the word would have lost all meaning. We have seen this over and over again with words that were coined to make a needed distinction, like "nanotechnology".
Note that this logic places much higher value on drawing a clear line and sticking with it than it does on getting the line right. Just like we draw a line on "adult" at 18. It's clearly arbitrary, but an arbitrary simple stable line is better than the mess that would result from trying to be more accurate. This is the thresholding of the world into categories that rules can apply to, just as an A-to-D converter thresholds the world into categories that digital logic can apply to. In both cases, the important thing is to remove ambiguity by making arbitrary choices. These choices don't remove actual ambiguity from our understanding of the world, but they enable disparate parts of a system to coordinate with each other in reacting to that world; since they can react to a shared abstraction of the world. Those who care about open-source need a shared distinction more than they need a good distinction. That said, I think the OSD has done a great job at creating a decent distinction.
In any case, I've read section 6 of SqueakL and don't understand the problem with it. I tried looking at the squeak archive, but it's no better indexed than mine ;), so I wasn't able to find an explanation of the problem. If this has already been hashed out, then please respond to me privately rather than on the list.
At 11:05 PM 4/29/2002 Monday, Cees de Groot wrote:
You seem to be thinking that "free software" as a term existed before the FSF used it, and similarly that "open source" as a term existed before (who?) coined it.
It was coined by Christine Peterson, the head of the Foresight Institute, cc'ed on this email.
[...] there are many organizations out there who would like to ride the open source wave but would also like to avoid paying their dues to the community, and when we ('we' as a bunch of guys who are clearly on the right side of things) start diluting the term ourselves, we cannot blame all sort of sleazy types to do the same.
Indeed! Further, we do their job for them.
---------------------------------------- Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain
Cheers, --MarkM
The discussion has made clear that "OSI approved" ids the wrong classification of Squeak at SourceForge. Since there is no better-fitting category available there, I changed it to "Other/Proprietary License". So we're now one of 527 not-approved-by-OSI projects there: http://sourceforge.net/softwaremap/trove_list.php?form_cat=196
-- Bert
Mark S. Miller markm@caplet.com said:
Hi all, I'm Mark Miller, and I run an open source project over at http://www.erights.org .
Hi Mark, glad you're here. Contemplating a port of E to Squeak? ;-) I like E, but it runs on a funny platform at the moment...
Note that this logic places much higher value on drawing a clear line and sticking with it than it does on getting the line right.
Thanks for pointing this out so clearly.
In any case, I've read section 6 of SqueakL and don't understand the problem with it.
From some off-list mail I wrote on the topic:
- Clause 6, export law assurances. This is explicitely mentioned in paragraph 5. of the OSD, together with a proposal of what is acceptable (and actually shows up in most OSD-compliant licenses).
But rather let's discuss E on Squeak here...
"Mark S. Miller" markm@caplet.com wrote:
Note that this logic places much higher value on drawing a clear line and sticking with it than it does on getting the line right. Just like we draw a line on "adult" at 18. It's clearly arbitrary, but an arbitrary simple stable line is better than the mess that would result from trying to be more accurate.
This is a great example. In common parlance, "adult" is broader than "at least 18". If you want to be specific (and wrong, but I agree that's sometimes what you want), you say something like "minor" or "at least 18".
Okay, I'll leave it alone now. It still seems very nitpicky to say Squeak isn't open source because of unimportant clauses in it's license, but that ground has been covered already. Now that I read the OS definition, it really does mean what I thought it meant. People are simply being very strict about it.
Lex Spoon
On Tue, 30 Apr 2002, Lex Spoon wrote:
"Mark S. Miller" markm@caplet.com wrote:
Note that this logic places much higher value on drawing a clear line and sticking with it than it does on getting the line right. Just like we draw a line on "adult" at 18. It's clearly arbitrary, but an arbitrary simple stable line is better than the mess that would result from trying to be more accurate.
This is a great example. In common parlance, "adult" is broader than "at least 18".
[snip]
Another wonderful example is "dead" (and "time of death"). Putting aside revivability issues for a moment, it's pretty clear that dying is a continuous process, thus the "moment" of death is a useful fiction. The key to that fiction is that you are on the *correct* side of the fuzzy line :)
Cheers, Bijan Parsia.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 08:05:25AM +0200, Cees de Groot wrote:
You seem to be thinking that "free software" as a term existed before the FSF used it, and similarly that "open source" as a term existed before (who?) coined it.
Eric S. Raymond. See especially "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" (check Google for a copy, also available in book form).
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org