[IAEP] squeak/etoys accepted into Debian main
yoshiki at vpri.org
Fri Nov 7 22:21:10 EST 2008
At Sat, 8 Nov 2008 00:09:34 -0300 ,
Jecel Assumpcao Jr wrote:
> My point was: is forbidding the export clause as part of the Open Source
> definition a practical concern or is it just a philosophical checkbox? I
> agree that it would not make sense to have one rule for Squeak and
> another for the 20K packages you mentioned. And it was the indenization
> clause that the Debian people objected to in any case, not the export
> one. So changing this aspect of the Open Source definition wouldn't have
> helped there.
Because these clauses are now irrelevant (for Etoys and hopefully
soon the mainstream Squeak from squeak.org), this point we don't
really have to worry about.
(In regards to whether it is just a philosophical checkbox, I tend
to think so. If a company makes a product based on an open-source
project and sells it to Cuba from the US, the company may be punished
regardless what its license says.)
> I just want efforts like these (I contributed very little - just figured
> out who a couple of the developers were) to be rewarded by something
> actually changing as a result.
The real change I would like to see is it just gets in these distros
without much hoopla and emailing man-hours...
More information about the IAEP