Bert Freudenberg <bert at isg.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2001 goran.hultgren at bluefish.se wrote:
> 
> > ... and Stephen Pair wrote:
> > >
> > > I think the requirement for a new license (if any) should be that it
> > > stick as closely
> > > as possible to the current SqueakL, and that it be blessed by
> > > www.opensource.org.
> >
> > Well, SqueakL is probably already OpenSource (I guess) so I am not sure
> > you really need to change it in order to get it blessed as that.
> 
> It's not in the list at http://opensource.org/licenses/ so it's not
> officially OpenSource. However, what is there, is the "Apple Public

Correct, and I don't think anybody have asked them to look at it either.
Perhaps they want money for that! :-)

> Source License". IANAL but maybe this licence could apply?

Hardly think so.
 
> OTOH, how much of Squeak *really* is Apple's? The Mac VM? The image as of
> version x.y? The fonts? If this was identifyable, we could start a "Free

Well, everything that was released from Apple. The base image (as of
then) and everything in it (which means the VM too of course). The fonts
are not a problem - they can either be exchanged as Stable Squeak
already has done or in fact (if I understood Henrik correctly on this)
they might not even be a problem in their bitmapped form.

> Squeak" project that just implements the Apple parts from scratch. I'm
> really tired of all this licence babble ...

Well, we all are to some extent - but still - I find it a problem that
Debian can't include Squeak.
Perhaps not a big problem to most, but still a problem.

- Squeak just doesn't qualify as free software according to the
definitions of Debian and FSF.


A silly question perhaps but can you build an app in Squeak and release
it under GPL? You could right? Andrew?

Squeak probably does qualify as OpenSource though which for most is good
enough.

> -- Bert

regards, Göran