[IAEP] etoys now available in Debian's non-free repository

[Bert Freudenberg]

Am 24.06.2008 um 20:38 schrieb Albert Cahalan:

> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de 
> > wrote:
>> Am 24.06.2008 um 20:04 schrieb Albert Cahalan:
>>
>>> I'm glad that Debian didn't break the rules for etoys.
>>> You're claiming to be open source, yet you've LOST the
>>> source code decades ago. Hacking up binary images is
>>> shockingly horrible software non-engineering.
>>
>> Sorry Albert, this just shows your shocking ignorance.
>>
>> *All the source code* for *every* piece of byte code in the
>> image is available, and not only that, we even *ship* it
>
> No. This is not true. You ship a binary blob. That doesn't
> count, even if so-called "source code" is viewable from
> within the blob.
>
> It's not source code unless I can:
>
> a. build a bit-for-bit identical image from it (aside from timestamps)
> b. edit it with an editor of my choice
> c. manage it with svn, git, or anything else
> d. diff it with standard tools
> e. patch it with standard tools

Well, your view then is way more narrow than even the Free Software  
Foundation's. Let me recall the four fundamental software freedoms for  
you:

	• The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
	• The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your  
needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
	• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor  
(freedom 2).
	• The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements  
to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3).  
Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

All of these freedoms are satisfied with the way Etoys is developed.  
It might not fit your personal taste, but then, you are very welcome  
to rewrite it to suit your taste. Our time is better spent actually  
improving the software, not reassembling it for no good reason.

>>> GNU Smalltalk is built in a relatively normal way. OLPC could
>>> ship that instead, assuming that Smalltalk is desirable.
>>
>> It is not Smalltalk that is desirable, but Etoys. I'd be very  
>> interested to
>> hear of equivalent software packages.
>
> Unless you can separate Etoys from Smalltalk, you sure
> do desire Smalltalk.

To the kids it is of no real importance that Etoys is written on top  
of Smalltalk. It's just an implementation detail. But I'd still be  
interested in learning about alternatives.

- Bert -