Maarten Maartensz <maartens at xs4all.nl> said:
>Third, as G=F6ran possibly rightly remarks, in specific refined senses of
>"free software" and "open source", Squeak is or may not fully qualify - by
>the wordings or interpretations of FSF, OSI and DFSG (which may or may not
>be mine, and have their special reasons and ends, as Squeak's licence arose
>for specific reasons).
>
These interpretations are what the majority of users seems to accept.
Therefore, it is dangerous to deviate from these definitions if only to
avoid the impression that you're playing fast and loose with these terms
just in order to 'ride the wave'. Better to be conservative in your
words here.

>My own conclusion is more simply that Squeak IS free software and IS open
>source - AND comes currently with its own special licence, which indeed
>does deserve explanation.=20
>
No, it is NOT free software. I cannot give it to my friends in Libya or
Iraq, for example. In fact, it is the US government that decides who I
can share it with. If there's one government in this world that I don't
trust to make these judgements, it's the dorks occupying the District of
Columbia (especially now they've put one of the most pathetic examples
of their species in the driver's seat).

>This seems a little bit too much like saying Squeak cannot be called
>"revolutionary technology" as MS is not pleased to call it so.
>
The difference is that these particular terms stem largely from the hacker
community itself, have been under scrutiny and discussion for almost two
decades, and have wide acceptance. I'm a techie, I don't like playing
fast and loose with well-accepted definitions - that's what they have
invented marketing departments for and that's bad enough already.

-- 
Cees de Groot               http://www.cdegroot.com     <cg at cdegroot.com>
GnuPG 1024D/E0989E8B 0016 F679 F38D 5946 4ECD  1986 F303 937F E098 9E8B