> >1. License. > > For Squeak generally this is an old, resolved issue.
For Etoys, it is a resolved issue. > >1. Availability of source code. > > This is an old misunderstanding. I believe noone currently think that > source in unavailable - the issue is how to handle the available source > (see below) Good. > >2. Maintainability of code by downstream. > >3. Security. > > This issue of distributor unfamiliarity with Squeak source is the issue > still standing. It is very real: > > It is no "misunderstanding" that e.g. Debian ftpmasters (on behalf of > Debian security team) admit that they are unfamiliar with patching > Squeak objects and thus not confident that they can do so reliably. > > It is also no "misunderstanding" that Debian (and most probably > distributions in general) want the ability to apply fixes to their > maintained code independently from upstream. As Matthew pointed out (http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2008-November/002396.html), Debian can just apply their own fixes. So it sounds like there is only unfamiliarity issue, and it should be possible to resolve it. > >Action Item. > >Flesh out, and move this discussion to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >I will start that discussion with the participants of this thread cc:ed > >later this week. > > Excellent! Thank you, David! -- Yoshiki _______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
