Re: A Gentle Introduction to the Squeak Community

I feel very strongly we should avoid the statement "OSI approval
pending". As Goran said, some people do care about whether software is
OSI compliant or not, and though I specifically don't, I would avoid
software that is labeled in a misleading manner.

There were lots of good enough proposals mentioned.

BTW, I for one would be very happy if we could in good conscience remove
the offensive paragraphs. 

FSF/OSI incompatibility is a liability to this community, even if it's
not one to us as individuals.

Daniel

[email protected] wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > <quote>
> > > technically, Squeak isn't Open Source
> > > </quote>
> > 
> > Yes, Andreas - that is true.
> 
> Guys, please. Even if it may be technically correct that Squeak is not OSI
> approved and therefore not Open Source (tm) Software that's no way to phrase
> it. Just imagine what you would think if you read this. If that's the way
> you're going to do marketing then good night. For starters change this into "not
> OSI approved" instead of "not Open Source" and if someone complains then make
> it "open source" (IIRC, then only "Open Source" is tm-ed). In fact, I would
> say "OSI approval pending".
> 
>   - Andreas
> 
> > Cees tried the SqueakL on the OpenSource
> > guys (www.opensource.org) (they have a list for these things) and there
> > are two problems:
> > 
> > 1. The font clause must be removed. This is possible to do, but until it
> > has been removed SqueakL fails OSD compliance.
> > 
> > 2. Clause 6 fails the non-discrimination test of OSD.
> > 
> > A quote from Matthew Weigel on that: 
> > 
> > "IIRC, this actually came up with the APSL too (corrections, anyone? 
> > was it the Plan 9 license instead?). If that recollection is 
> > correct, then it seems that it might be 'easy' to point out that 
> > they have capitulated on that point previously (that's probably not 
> > the best wording to use around them, though :)."
> > 
> > And Forrest J. Cavalier III:
> > 
> > "Requiring  compliance with U.S. laws, even in other jurisdictions is 
> > unnecessary.  But the way paragraph 6 is worded, I think it obviously
> > fails the OSD non-discrimination test.
> > 
> > I quote that paragraph:
> > 
> > 6. Export Law Assurances.  You may not use or otherwise export or
> > reexport the Apple Software except as authorized by United States law
> > and the laws of the jurisdiction in which the Apple Software was
> > obtained.  In particular, but without limitation, the Apple Software
> > may not be exported or reexported (i) into (or to a national or
> > resident of) any U.S. embargoed country or (ii) to anyone on the U.S.
> > Treasury Department's list of Specially Designated Nationals or 
> > the U.S. Department of Commerce's Table of Denial Orders.  By using
> > the Apple Software, you represent and warrant that you are not located
> > in, under control of, or a national or resident of any such country 
> > or on any such list.<p>
> > 
> > I am sorry that there are some previous licenses to work with
> > here.  Squeak is pretty well-known.  But my recommendation:
> > DEFINITELY DO NOT APPROVE."
> > 
> > regards, Göran
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Squeakfoundation mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
> > 
> 
> -- 
> +++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more  http://www.gmx.net +++
> NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation