Re: A Gentle Introduction to the Squeak Community

 <[email protected]> said:
>> Not much. We should provide a link to the actual text of the license 
>> and leave it at the original wording.
>
>And/or perhaps a link to a FAQ explaining as much as possible.
>
Gee. I was hoping that you guys had some other nits to pick on the 'Gentle
Introduction'. But, yes, I was planning to make the sentence 'not open source'
a link to a page where I, to the best of my ability (some 15 years of reading
licenses and having discussions like these ;-)) explain what the
'shortcomings' of the SqL are w.r.t 'Open Source' and 'Free Software'.

>Secondly - this DOES indeed matter a lot to developers in the "open
>source/free software" world. Hey, just ask them and you will discover.
>
Yup. That's why I want to have this cleared up for newbies right at the
beginning. 

>[...] or someone else, like one of
>the three Swedes that got branded as terrorists by the US (now at least
>one of them has gotten off that list), that the US has decided to
>embargo of course...
>
How do I get on that list? Pleasepleaseplease? ;-}

>Sidenote: Hey, there are even 4 packages under GPL and 3 under LGPL on
>SM, even though these licenses probably doesn't work in the image model!
>
And that's something that needs cleaning up, otherwise we won't scale as a
community, I think. I will add something to the extent 'GPL considered
harmful' in the text I promised to write above.



-- 
Cees de Groot               http://www.cdegroot.com     <[email protected]>
GnuPG 1024D/E0989E8B 0016 F679 F38D 5946 4ECD  1986 F303 937F E098 9E8B
Cogito ergo evigilo