Hi,
(I've added squeak-dev to the To: line so someone else can respond)
My unexpert opinion.
Open Source has a very specific meaning and by their meaning squeak is not Open Source. (notice the Upper Case)
The FSF folks also have a very specific thing in mind and by their definition Squeak is not Free Software.
I believe that there are three sections of the license which cause problems with the above groups.
- The fonts. You can't produce derivative works from the fonts and you can't charge a fee for the works that contain the fonts.
- Clause 5 - "You agree to indemnify and hold Apple harmless from any and all damages..."
- Clause 6 - Export Law Assurances.
This is basically what https://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/license-list.html says:
The Squeak license
As applied to software, this is not a free software license because it requires all users in whatever country to obey US export control laws. As applied to fonts, it also does not permit modification.
In addition, it has a requirement for users to indemnify the developer, which is enough to make many users think twice about using it at all.
Now my current take on the above is:
- Fonts. We've gotten rid of the origional ones and therefore this doesn't apply anymore.
- Clause 5 - Well, you can't sue Apple.
- Clause 6 - Unless you plan to have no dealings with the US you probably have to keep this in mind anyway. It's suprising how far the attempts to apply US export laws go, and, one probably doesn't want to try to be a test case. Your call though.
There has been some chatter about just ignoring the problem and releasing squeak under the Croquet license (see http://www.opencroquet.org/Croquet_Technologies/license.html) since they have just gone and done that (basically) for Squeak 3.6.
Anyway, there has been a lot of debate over the years on the squeak-dev mailing list and there continues to be debate :-)
cheers
bruce
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 06:57:07PM +0530, Vimal Joseph wrote:
Hi Bruce O'Neel,
i found your address on the download page of the project Squeak. I am not sure you are the right person to contact for my query. I couldn't found whom to contact for issues regarding license of squeak.
In the Squeak's home page and related pages, it is written that squeak is a open source program. So i downloaded it. But on a search on the net I found the following page http://sourceforge.net/support/noss_exception.php?group_id=5506 which clearly says that squeak is not an open source project. In the fsf.org license page also i found that squeak is not a Free Software.
I am now totally confused. I really want to use squeak and spread it among the teacher community in my place. But if it is a Non Free software, i cant do that. Please help me clear this confusion.
Thanks and Regards,
Vimal Joseph
-- Free as in Freedom <www.gnu.org>
You left out all the specific things that are perfectly free and open source about Squeak:
1. You have all of the source code of Squeak.
2. You can write both commercial and free software in Squeak.
3. You can distribute your source code, or not, as you please.
4. You can mix your Squeak code with code under other licenses.
The only restriction, is that if you modify the core system itself (e.g. by modifying the compiler), then you have to share your changes with the world. If you merely write a program in Squeak, then you don't have this restriction.
Compare this to GPL, where you must give source code for *everything* you write and distribute, and where you cannot mix with anything but more GPL code. Leaving aside license lawyers, Squeak-L is more free than GPL for *practical* purposes.
Who cares what OSI [1] says about this, if they are rejecting a license that has all of these properties? They are making themselves irrelevant when they reject Squeak-L but accept GPL. They aren't defining a strong standard of openness, nor a weak standard of openness -- they are defining a weird standard of openness.
Use the software already, and leave law for the lawyers. All of these license discussions are really fantasies until the courts start weighing in. When that happens, I expect it will be very ugly, and I bet cherished "free" [2] licenses like GPL don't fare nearly as well as their proponents expect [3]. I think OSI and Debian should focus on practical freedoms, instead of trying to act like lawyers--in fact, they are bordering on breaking the law, when they try to give legal advice like this. But whatever those well-meaning organizations do, there is certainly no reason for J. Random Enthusiast to play license lawyer if they don't.
Use the code, and leave law for the lawyers.
-Lex
[1] Note the acronym -- I refuse to cede OSI the right to define common English terms, capitalized or not. OSI eventually gave up on this themselves. Frankly, I don't agree with their definition of "open source".
[2] What is Stallman thinking of calling GPL "free"? GPL software comes with serious strings attached! He has good arguments for including those strings, but he should not talk about it as if they weren't there. It is not "free as in the English language" to impose serious conditions on someone before they can tinker on the software. It's pure doublespeak.
[3] I am starting to think, that most open source software should simply be put in the public domain. If you aren't happy with PD, then you probably aren't really happy with the idea of releasing your goods for free. Whose idea was it, anyway, that we should attach strings--any strings at all--to the stuff we "give away" ?
Interesting this should come up now. The license issue was discussed at LinuxWorld in Boston last week.
From znet: BOSTON--The Open Source Initiative, an influential open-source organization, is devising ways to cut down on the rising number of open-source licenses attached to software.
Complete story at: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5578799.html?tag=st.prev
I can't speak for Stallman but I believe he was trying to address the issues that existed with proprietary software back in the 'dark ages' of computers. It's hard to remember, or imagine if your under a certain age, that once upon a time you didn't log onto the 'net' and get everything from editors to operating systems with the click of a button. You paid and paid dearly for the software you ran, or you wrote it yourself.
The restrictions these licenses put on the software are really meant to keep it open as counterintuitive as that sounds.. If you put something in the public domain without any restrictions then it is possible a large organization to appropriate the software and over time close it off.
Perhaps Stallman and the Open Software Foundation and the others didn't get it exactly right but I really believe had they not reshaped the whole model of software development and distribution we would still be doing business the old fashion way.
Of course anyone is allowed to do what they want with the code they write. Put it in the public domain no strings attached, no one is forcing you to do otherwise. And of course if I give away something I am allowed to attach as many strings as I like.
regards
------------------------ Frank Caggiano frankcag at crystal-objects dot com http://www.crystal-objects.com
The best education for the best is the best education for all. Robert Maynard Hutchins
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:39:28 -0500, Frank Caggiano frankcag@crystal-objects.com wrote:
Perhaps Stallman and the Open Software Foundation and the others didn't get it exactly right but I really believe had they not reshaped the whole model of software development and distribution we would still be doing business the old fashion way.
Err... I don't think that Stallman and the Free Software Foundation (OSF is an entirely different beast) can get the credits for that.
Check the copyright dates on the open source SunRPC library, for starters. Or the timestamps on the first MIT/BSD style licenses. Remember all the 'public domain' software in the early '80s for the IBM PC, much of which had source code available. Or, if you want to go really really back, go hunt for the copyright dates on the OS/360 source code you can just download from the net (errr... I don't even think there aren't any. Yes, old IBM mainframe system software was largely open source and some even public domain, that was when Stallman was still crawling around in diapers, I guess ;)).
All that the 'Open Source' movement did, was reinstate an old and good habit. What the FSF did, was and still is a very interesting way to bend copyright and licensing laws to counteract their own operation, sort of. Interesting, important, but the 'old fashioned' way was just something newfashioned from the late '80s...
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Bruce O'Neel -
Cees de Groot -
Frank Caggiano -
Lex Spoon