> > There is a lot of collected license information on the Squeak Wiki: > > "Squeak-L" > http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/159
>From that cite: """ It surprises many that "Open Source" has been given a very specific and stringent definition. There have been efforts to make this apply to "open source" in lower case, too. Apparently, Squeak is not "Open Source", and there is disagreement on whether it is "open source". Squeak Central does consider Squeak to be "open source", however, and pretty much everyone agrees that Squeak-L meets the spirit of the Open Source movement (which it predates by many years). """ Neither am I a lawyer, and neither do I wish to get into the fine print of licensing issues. But I am apparently not "pretty much everyone". Because what I can say without hesitation is that I do not see in Squeak a spirit and a history compatible with the *spirit* of debian. Understanding that Squeak has the perfect right to have its own spirit, its own community, and its own Squeak centric license, sensibilities, whatever. Which I do not argue against. Or make any accusations against. I would have no problem myself being part of that community, if that is where my interests led me. But, bottom line, I think Squeak's view is too Squeak-centric, to be compatible with a true free software and open source view ala debian. Which to me, from a technology point of view, emphasizes the advantages of technologies than can cooperate and leverage from each other. Squeak is a technology unto itself, with no goal or pretense to work cooperatively with any other technology. In that most important sense, it is closed. And incompatible with the *spirit* of free and open source, at least as I happen to understand and experience that spirit. Art
