[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: squeak

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Bert Freudenberg wrote:

> Allowing third parties to "make money" with Squeak-based applications
> is part of the intent of the Squeak License. Any modifications to the
> base system have to be shared and thus given back to the community.
> Whatever you build on top of Squeak (using the base system as a
> development and runtime environment) can be proprietary or shared.
This is what BSD, MPL or similiar licenses was invented for ...

> Squeak is free, but not Free as the FSF defines it, both for social and
> technical reasons. The technical reasons include that Squeak is a
> dynamic, "life" object system, in contrast to most other programming
> environments who are based on "dead" source code. Terms like "source
> code", "linking", "library" etc. do not have quite the same meaning.
> This makes it hard to be compare it with the GPL.
We do not necessarily need a GPL license.

> And Open Source? Of
> course you have the source built into the life system! It is actually
> very hard to lock down the system in a way that you can not easily
> access the source code.
Well the term "Open Source" is used often for things where you are
allowed to have a look at the source, but our (Debian) definition
includes the right to change and redistribute.

Just consider the Debian Guidelines


if they would work.  What Debian gives back to Squeak is a *really*
great user base which might be helpful for your project.  This is the
extra plus and there are *many* projects who really like it to become
pupolar on the back of Debian.

> Or, to illustrate the "life system" idea a bit: Who does really run his
> whole desktop under GDB? Not many, I'd guess. You'd rather do a
> pathological examination of the core dump instead. However, in Squeak I
> do exactly this. Whenever something goes wrong, I can immediately debug
> and fix it, of course in the running system. No restart of the crashed
> application necessary. You would be surprised what difference this
> makes in your development style!
Well, I do not see any reason why this conflicts with a license which fits
the rules mentioned above.

> (*) If Disney's legal department can accept this open-source license,
> it should be farely safe to assume it will work for your company, too.
Sorry, Debian is not a company and we are simply not allowed to distribute
software which conflicts with the guidelines above.  Please have a look
at www.debian.org or perhaps


for an explanation of the relation to other GNU/Linux distributions.

Kind regards


Reply to: