You left out all the specific things that are perfectly free and open
source about Squeak:

	1. You have all of the source code of Squeak.

	2. You can write both commercial and free software in Squeak.

	3. You can distribute your source code, or not, as you please.

	4. You can mix your Squeak code with code under other licenses.

The only restriction, is that if you modify the core system itself (e.g.
by modifying the compiler), then you have to share your changes with the
world.  If you merely write a program in Squeak, then you don't have
this restriction.

Compare this to GPL, where you must give source code for *everything*
you write and distribute, and where you cannot mix with anything but
more GPL code.  Leaving aside license lawyers, Squeak-L is more free
than GPL for *practical* purposes.

Who cares what OSI [1] says about this, if they are rejecting a license
that has all of these properties?  They are making themselves irrelevant
when they reject Squeak-L but accept GPL.  They aren't defining a strong
standard of openness, nor a weak standard of openness -- they are
defining a weird standard of openness.

Use the software already, and leave law for the lawyers.  All of these
license discussions are really fantasies until the courts start weighing
in.  When that happens, I expect it will be very ugly, and I bet
cherished "free" [2] licenses like GPL don't fare nearly as well as
their proponents expect [3].  I think OSI and Debian should focus on
practical freedoms, instead of trying to act like lawyers--in fact, they
are bordering on breaking the law, when they try to give legal advice
like this.  But whatever those well-meaning organizations do, there is
certainly no reason for J. Random Enthusiast to play license lawyer if
they don't.

Use the code, and leave law for the lawyers.

-Lex


[1] Note the acronym -- I refuse to cede OSI the right to define common
English terms, capitalized or not.  OSI eventually gave up on this
themselves.  Frankly, I don't agree with their definition of "open
source".

[2] What is Stallman thinking of calling GPL "free"?  GPL software comes
with serious strings attached!  He has good arguments for including
those strings, but he should not talk about it as if they weren't there.
 It is not "free as in the English language" to impose serious
conditions on someone before they can tinker on the software.  It's pure
doublespeak.

[3] I am starting to think, that most open source software should simply
be put in the public domain.  If you aren't happy with PD, then you
probably aren't really happy with the idea of releasing your goods for
free.  Whose idea was it, anyway, that we should attach strings--any
strings at all--to the stuff we "give away" ?