Squeak Licence

stéphane ducasse ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Fri May 6 16:43:02 UTC 2005

May be guys
may be but now I can tell you they do not care. No Squeak no etoy at 


On 6 mai 05, at 17:43, Lex Spoon wrote:

> Serge Stinckwich <Serge.Stinckwich at info.unicaen.fr> wrote:
>> Sorry Cees, we can't call beancounting wankers all the people that are
>> not agree with us : Debian people, SPI people, RMML people, ...
>> Unfortunalty the world is not rule by spirit but by letter stuff ...
>> Righ now the licence is a big problem for Squeak and his distribution 
>> :
>> problems with the Linux distributions, problems with the open-source
>> conferences, problems for the adoption of Squeak in the open-source
>> pedagogical community, ...
> Yes we can.  RMS, debian-legal (emphatically *NOT* representative of
> Debian at large), and this RMLL committee are all beancounting wankers.
> They are inventing problems--perhaps in order to make themselves
> relevant?
> There will be problems with Squeak-L if it ever comes to the courts.
> Just like with GPL, MIT, BSD, and any other license you name.  The
> issues just aren't settled.  No one knows what the letter of the law
> is, in these cases, so the spirit and practice are all we really have 
> to go by.
> We *might* end up compromising with these guys just to get along.
> That doesn't mean we have to respect them.  This license lawyering is
> causing real harm to open source, and we  should not shy from telling 
> them.
> In the mean time, we shouldn't get worked up about them.  It's their
> conference, and they can be irrelevant if they want to.  Our actual
> customers can decide for themselves.
> Lex

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list