On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 03:36:19PM +0100, goran.hultgren at bluefish.se wrote:
> My impression about SqueakL/Debian though (my memory may serve me wrong
> here) was that the export clause (!) was no problem for Debian, it was
> the indemnification stuff as Stephen Stafford explained:
> 
> http://macos.tuwien.ac.at:9009/438570542.asHtml
> 
> ...which probably would be a problem for OSI too then I guess.
> 
Oh, yes, I remember... I really wonder why we've got a sourceforge
account...

> But throwing SqueakL at OSI and see what they say could probably be
> done. 
Yes, we should try this. Legal advice is actually part of the certifacation
process:

|* If we find that the license does not conform to the Open Source
|  Definition, we will work with you to resolve the problems.
|* As part of this process, we may also seek outside legal advice on license
|  issues.

So maybe they could really help us to find a solution. 
Squeak should be somewhat important for them: You might remember those
Helloween-MS-Documents. Eric Raymond's commentary included direct references
to Squeak as an example for a Open Source Project that tries to do new
stuff instead of re-implementing existing Systems.  And Eric is a
board-member of opensource.org....

Maybe I should explain why I think we should have an OSI Certified
Open Source License...

We are allready using resources of the Open Source / Free Software
Community, sourceforge is one example. Stephane's contact to FSFe,
or my plans to have a both at LinuxTag. 
Being Open Source, these kind of things could be done very easyly. 

But with the current SqueakL we have to either cheat (we did that in the past)
or discuss *each and every time* again why we have such a <Beep> License, that 
we are really Open Sourcish in spirit, and so on and so on.
I *really* don't want to have this discussion every x weeks. There are 
*much* more interesting things to do.
 
       Marcus
-- 
Marcus Denker marcus at ira.uka.de  -- Squeak! http://squeakland.org