"Lex Spoon" <lex at cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
> goran.hultgren at 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