http://swiki.theinternetone.net/squeakfoundation/82
is an attempt to describe the organization of the community by way of a guide for newbies. I just collected bits of content, it's very much a work in progress, but I'd like to have your opinion on whether this is a feasible way to chart how the Squeak community works before really plunging in (and, of course, being the lazy guy I am, I hope someone else completes it before I get a chance ;-))
<quote> technically, Squeak isn't Open Source </quote>
Huh???
http://swiki.theinternetone.net/squeakfoundation/82
is an attempt to describe the organization of the community by way of a guide for newbies. I just collected bits of content, it's very much a work in progress, but I'd like to have your opinion on whether this is a feasible way to chart how the Squeak community works before really plunging in (and, of course, being the lazy guy I am, I hope someone else completes it before I get a chance ;-))
-- Cees de Groot http://www.cdegroot.com cg@cdegroot.com GnuPG 1024D/E0989E8B 0016 F679 F38D 5946 4ECD 1986 F303 937F E098 9E8B Cogito ergo evigilo _______________________________________________ Squeakfoundation mailing list Squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
Andreas.Raab@gmx.de wrote:
<quote> technically, Squeak isn't Open Source </quote>
Yes, Andreas - that is true. Cees tried the SqueakL on the OpenSource guys (www.opensource.org) (they have a list for these things) and there are two problems:
1. The font clause must be removed. This is possible to do, but until it has been removed SqueakL fails OSD compliance.
2. Clause 6 fails the non-discrimination test of OSD.
A quote from Matthew Weigel on that:
"IIRC, this actually came up with the APSL too (corrections, anyone? was it the Plan 9 license instead?). If that recollection is correct, then it seems that it might be 'easy' to point out that they have capitulated on that point previously (that's probably not the best wording to use around them, though :)."
And Forrest J. Cavalier III:
"Requiring compliance with U.S. laws, even in other jurisdictions is unnecessary. But the way paragraph 6 is worded, I think it obviously fails the OSD non-discrimination test.
I quote that paragraph:
6. Export Law Assurances. You may not use or otherwise export or reexport the Apple Software except as authorized by United States law and the laws of the jurisdiction in which the Apple Software was obtained. In particular, but without limitation, the Apple Software may not be exported or reexported (i) into (or to a national or resident of) any U.S. embargoed country or (ii) to anyone on the U.S. Treasury Department's list of Specially Designated Nationals or the U.S. Department of Commerce's Table of Denial Orders. By using the Apple Software, you represent and warrant that you are not located in, under control of, or a national or resident of any such country or on any such list.<p>
I am sorry that there are some previous licenses to work with here. Squeak is pretty well-known. But my recommendation: DEFINITELY DO NOT APPROVE."
regards, Göran
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 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".
- Andreas
Cees tried the SqueakL on the OpenSource guys (www.opensource.org) (they have a list for these things) and there are two problems:
- The font clause must be removed. This is possible to do, but until it
has been removed SqueakL fails OSD compliance.
- Clause 6 fails the non-discrimination test of OSD.
A quote from Matthew Weigel on that:
"IIRC, this actually came up with the APSL too (corrections, anyone? was it the Plan 9 license instead?). If that recollection is correct, then it seems that it might be 'easy' to point out that they have capitulated on that point previously (that's probably not the best wording to use around them, though :)."
And Forrest J. Cavalier III:
"Requiring compliance with U.S. laws, even in other jurisdictions is unnecessary. But the way paragraph 6 is worded, I think it obviously fails the OSD non-discrimination test.
I quote that paragraph:
- Export Law Assurances. You may not use or otherwise export or
reexport the Apple Software except as authorized by United States law and the laws of the jurisdiction in which the Apple Software was obtained. In particular, but without limitation, the Apple Software may not be exported or reexported (i) into (or to a national or resident of) any U.S. embargoed country or (ii) to anyone on the U.S. Treasury Department's list of Specially Designated Nationals or the U.S. Department of Commerce's Table of Denial Orders. By using the Apple Software, you represent and warrant that you are not located in, under control of, or a national or resident of any such country or on any such list.<p>
I am sorry that there are some previous licenses to work with here. Squeak is pretty well-known. But my recommendation: DEFINITELY DO NOT APPROVE."
regards, Göran
Squeakfoundation mailing list Squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
Andreas.Raab@gmx.de is claimed by the authorities to have written:
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 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".
I agree. How about something like:- Squeak is an open source system, although it is not currently 'Open Source(tm)' as defined by OSI.
If it ever seems wise to attempt to persuade Apple to release it from the supposedly problematic clause(s) and they do so, then we can change the web page.
tim
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, Tim Rowledge wrote:
I agree. How about something like:- Squeak is an open source system, although it is not currently 'Open Source(tm)' as defined by OSI.
Who cares about OSI? Just leave it at "Sq is an open-source system.", or keep the original wording: "Not only is all source code included and changeable at will, it is also completely open and free." Screw the rest. The OSI don't have any kind of inalienable right to `magically bless' software.
FWIW, the FSF refuse to call their software "Open Source (TM)(BS)".
Ian
On Saturday 23 November 2002 12:29 pm, Ian Piumarta wrote:
Who cares about OSI? Just leave it at "Sq is an open-source system.", or keep the original wording: "Not only is all source code included and changeable at will, it is also completely open and free." Screw the rest. The OSI don't have any kind of inalienable right to `magically bless' software.
I have to agree. We have to ask ourselves:
* to whom are we speaking?
To folks new to Squeak.
* why are we saying this?
To let them know what kind of community and expectations there are around Squeak.
* what kind of detail do we need to go into here?
Not much. We should provide a link to the actual text of the license and leave it at the original wording.
* to whom would it matter whether RMS would call Squeak Open Source?
I'm not sure. Perhaps to people wanting to incorporate Squeak into some OSI-blessed distribution? By the time they get to that point, though, they'd have already read the Squeak License and become more familiar with Squeak.
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, Ned Konz wrote:
- to whom would it matter whether RMS would call Squeak Open Source?
I'm not sure. Perhaps to people wanting to incorporate Squeak into some OSI-blessed distribution? By the time they get to that point, though, they'd have already read the Squeak License and become more familiar with Squeak.
FWIW, just to clarify: I don't think our beef is with RMS at all, but rather with The Church of Eric Raymond (and its disciples) and their tactics of "conversion by threat of ex-communication".
Maybe I should have said "the GNU Project [aka RMS and friends] refuse to align themselves with `Open Source'", although they do so for different reasons to the ones that concern us. There's an article by RMS that includes some comments on the "Free Software vs. Open Source community split" which can be read in Emacs by typing "C-H C-P". (It's a copy of an article he wrote for the book "Open Sources".)
Ian
Ned Konz ned@bike-nomad.com wrote:
On Saturday 23 November 2002 12:29 pm, Ian Piumarta wrote:
Who cares about OSI? Just leave it at "Sq is an open-source system.", or keep the original wording: "Not only is all source code included and changeable at will, it is also completely open and free." Screw the rest. The OSI don't have any kind of inalienable right to `magically bless' software.
I have to agree. We have to ask ourselves:
- to whom are we speaking?
To folks new to Squeak.
- why are we saying this?
To let them know what kind of community and expectations there are around Squeak.
- what kind of detail do we need to go into here?
Not much. We should provide a link to the actual text of the license and leave it at the original wording.
And/or perhaps a link to a FAQ explaining as much as possible.
- to whom would it matter whether RMS would call Squeak Open Source?
I'm not sure. Perhaps to people wanting to incorporate Squeak into some OSI-blessed distribution? By the time they get to that point, though, they'd have already read the Squeak License and become more familiar with Squeak.
First of all - the acronym would probably be ESR not RMS. Richard Stallman is the FSF guy and he doesn't like OSI nor OpenSource because he thinks they are missing the point. SqueakL doesn't qualify as "free software" either (that is an even smaller "eye of a needle") though.
Secondly - this DOES indeed matter a lot to developers in the "open source/free software" world. Hey, just ask them and you will discover.
I often find people in the Squeak community missing that this is indeed important to a lot of people. And IMHO the best way to handle this issue is to make very clear why SqueakL isn't classified as "free software" nor "OpenSource (tm)" and also make very clear why this is so and that it is in fact reasons that doesn't affect many of us.
Well, unless you are a Cuban or a Libyan or someone else, like one of the three Swedes that got branded as terrorists by the US (now at least one of them has gotten off that list), that the US has decided to embargo of course...
Sidenote: Hey, there are even 4 packages under GPL and 3 under LGPL on SM, even though these licenses probably doesn't work in the image model!
regards, Göran
goran.hultgren@bluefish.se said:
Not much. We should provide a link to the actual text of the license and leave it at the original wording.
And/or perhaps a link to a FAQ explaining as much as possible.
Gee. I was hoping that you guys had some other nits to pick on the 'Gentle Introduction'. But, yes, I was planning to make the sentence 'not open source' a link to a page where I, to the best of my ability (some 15 years of reading licenses and having discussions like these ;-)) explain what the 'shortcomings' of the SqL are w.r.t 'Open Source' and 'Free Software'.
Secondly - this DOES indeed matter a lot to developers in the "open source/free software" world. Hey, just ask them and you will discover.
Yup. That's why I want to have this cleared up for newbies right at the beginning.
[...] or someone else, like one of the three Swedes that got branded as terrorists by the US (now at least one of them has gotten off that list), that the US has decided to embargo of course...
How do I get on that list? Pleasepleaseplease? ;-}
Sidenote: Hey, there are even 4 packages under GPL and 3 under LGPL on SM, even though these licenses probably doesn't work in the image model!
And that's something that needs cleaning up, otherwise we won't scale as a community, I think. I will add something to the extent 'GPL considered harmful' in the text I promised to write above.
cg@cdegroot.com (Cees de Groot) wrote:
goran.hultgren@bluefish.se said:
Not much. We should provide a link to the actual text of the license and leave it at the original wording.
And/or perhaps a link to a FAQ explaining as much as possible.
Gee. I was hoping that you guys had some other nits to pick on the 'Gentle Introduction'. But, yes, I was planning to make the sentence 'not open source'
:-) I got caught up in this thread, I will read the full intro and get back to you again.
a link to a page where I, to the best of my ability (some 15 years of reading licenses and having discussions like these ;-)) explain what the 'shortcomings' of the SqL are w.r.t 'Open Source' and 'Free Software'.
Goodie.
Secondly - this DOES indeed matter a lot to developers in the "open source/free software" world. Hey, just ask them and you will discover.
Yup. That's why I want to have this cleared up for newbies right at the beginning.
[...] or someone else, like one of the three Swedes that got branded as terrorists by the US (now at least one of them has gotten off that list), that the US has decided to embargo of course...
How do I get on that list? Pleasepleaseplease? ;-}
[Political flamesuit on, but I can not resist because I really thinks this suck bigtime] Well, I don't know - the funny thing is that if you end up on that list they will not tell you why (so you can not defend yourself) and they will freeze your assets. These three guys have been going through a lot and now one is off and the other two are still working on it AFAIK. Note that the US finally presented their "evidence" to our government but it was deemed to not be enough and after more pressure from our government the US finally dropped him off the list.
Now... I may be naive but convicting someone without a trial? And without even telling him what he has done? Come on! What are you guys doing over there? [Political flamesuit off]
Sidenote: Hey, there are even 4 packages under GPL and 3 under LGPL on SM, even though these licenses probably doesn't work in the image model!
And that's something that needs cleaning up, otherwise we won't scale as a community, I think. I will add something to the extent 'GPL considered harmful' in the text I promised to write above.
Yes, and if Andrew could help you out - drop him an email to get some more info. He has been in contact with RMS and what RMS said etc is IMHO important to present to all those FSFers (the stuff about the GPL/LGPL being unsuited for the image model etc). And I have a whole bunch of postings about the license problems both from the squeak-dev and the OSI list.
regards, Göran
goran.hultgren@bluefish.se is claimed by the authorities to have written:
Now... I may be naive but convicting someone without a trial? And without even telling him what he has done? Come on! What are you guys doing over there? [Political flamesuit off]
As I recall, when the Soviet Union did it, it was known as Stalinism.
tim
Ian Piumarta ian.piumarta@inria.fr wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, Tim Rowledge wrote:
I agree. How about something like:- Squeak is an open source system, although it is not currently 'Open Source(tm)' as defined by OSI.
Who cares about OSI?
He! Are you serious? A LOT of people care about OSI! Yes, it's true - don't deny it. Saying otherwise is simply wrong IMHO. You nor I may of course not care - but that is "The Larch".
Just leave it at "Sq is an open-source system.", or keep the original wording: "Not only is all source code included and changeable at will, it is also completely open and free." Screw the rest.
Both those phrases are fine with me. But I would also gladly include a link to a page explaining the issues at hand - typically in a mini-FAQ or something. On the other hand - if this is an intro perhaps that depth isn't needed.
The OSI don't have any kind of inalienable right to `magically bless' software.
Of course not. They are probably as free to do that as anyone else? What is the problem? I find OSI to be quite ok - they have made it a lot simpler for many people to categorize all those licenses out there. If a license is OSI approved I can expect certain things from it. Otherwise I need to sit down and read carefully etc. etc. To me it is as simple as that.
FWIW, the FSF refuse to call their software "Open Source (TM)(BS)".
True, they have other goals and don't think "Open Source (tm)" is enough. I understand their goals etc but don't really agree with them.
But the GPL is an interesting license even if you don't agree with the vision behind it - it has been an enabler for many things - like for example all the cooperation from different companies in the Linux kernel. IMHO it would not have happened if it had been under a BSD flavour - don't underestimate the power of fearing that someone else might actually make money from your effort.
Ian
regards, Göran
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
squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org