Re: A Gentle Introduction to the Squeak Community

Ian Piumarta <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, Tim Rowledge wrote:
> 
> > I agree. How about something like:-
> > Squeak is an open source system, although it is not currently 'Open
> > Source(tm)' as defined by OSI.
> 
> Who cares about OSI?

He! Are you serious? A LOT of people care about OSI! Yes, it's true -
don't deny it. Saying otherwise is simply wrong IMHO. You nor I may of
course not care - but that is "The Larch". 

> Just leave it at "Sq is an open-source system.", or
> keep the original wording: "Not only is all source code included and
> changeable at will, it is also completely open and free."  Screw the rest.

Both those phrases are fine with me. But I would also gladly include a
link to a page explaining the issues at hand - typically in a mini-FAQ
or something. On the other hand - if this is an intro perhaps that depth
isn't needed.

> The OSI don't have any kind of inalienable right to `magically bless'
> software.

Of course not. They are probably as free to do that as anyone else? What
is the problem? I find OSI to be quite ok - they have made it a lot
simpler for many people to categorize all those licenses out there. If a
license is OSI approved I can expect certain things from it. Otherwise I
need to sit down and read carefully etc. etc. To me it is as simple as
that.

> FWIW, the FSF refuse to call their software "Open Source (TM)(BS)".

True, they have other goals and don't think "Open Source (tm)" is
enough. I understand their goals etc but don't really agree with them. 

But the GPL is an interesting license even if you don't agree with the
vision behind it - it has been an enabler for many things - like for
example all the cooperation from different companies in the Linux
kernel. IMHO it would not have happened if it had been under a BSD
flavour - don't underestimate the power of fearing that someone else
might actually make money from your effort.

> Ian

regards, Göran