RE: squeak

[Arthur <ajsiegel@optonline.net>]

> 
> 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