goran.hultgren at bluefish.se wrote:

> 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.

Frankly, saying that SqueakL isn't "open source" seems ridiculous.  Can
you recall what the complaint was?  Everyone can download all the source
to Squeak, modify it, and redistribute modified versions.  In fact, it
takes some effort to distribute anything written in Squeak (including
Squeak itself), *without* including the source code.  If that's not open
source, then what is?


-Lex