Bert Freudenberg bert@isg.cs.uni-magdeburg.de wrote:
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."
Sorry, my fault, I quote myself from the initial post:
"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."
This is only the intro page. All the detail is in the "About" page, including an explanation of the license terms.
Yes, I know.
All this may sound silly to a lot of you [...]
Indeed. I'm glad you acknowledge that ;-)
Well, it was never meant to become a long thread! It was just a detail that I thought could perhaps be changed in order to avoid misunderstandings or accusations of false claims.
But obviously I am quite alone in thinking this - which may very well mean that I am "wrong" - so let's just forget it, it's not that I care THAT much! ;-)
-- Bert
regards, Göran
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org