[Squeakfoundation]Visibility in the open source community

[Cees de Groot]

Matthew Denis Richard Sloly <sloly@artcenter.edu> said:
>This may be a bit out of date, but based on the discussions on the Squeak
>Foundation List re the Squeak license, and also for my own research, I
>decided to seek opinions on this matter from the horses mouth(s) and emailed
>Richard Stallman on the matter.
>
Thanks for this. His remarks coincide with what I think are the weak spots,
which has strengthened my belief in my ability to read licenses somewhat ;-).

I have submitted the SqueakL for review to the Open Source Institute
(www.opensource.org), and I propose that people who are really interested in
discussing the open source-ness of the SqueakL proceed to their license
discussion list, where the SqueakL was posted for discussion this morning.
It'll prevent duplication, and some Squeakers showing up on their list will
backup the seriousness of our request for review and thus will attract more
comments and more time from all the people on that list who will quite likely
have an awful lot of experience in this area. A mail to
license-discuss-subscribe@opensource.org is all that's needed to get on.

About the fonts: I wonder why they haven't been replaced yet by more, err,
generally accepted counterparts like Helvetica or Times. As I've understood
it, it is clear that bitmap fonts aren't protectable (at least, Andrew G.
seems to state this on the Wiki in terms that a lawyer only uses when he's
1000% sure he's right, IOW usually never ;-)), so am I right to assume that
the encoding is the only issue? Not only from a legal PoV, but also from ease
of acceptance I think it would be good to let Squeak come up by default with
better-known fonts (in a way, I think that'll greatly help usability of the
interface). Or are there deeper reasons that New York still rulez the image?



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