John Hinsley jhinsley@telinco.co.uk wrote: [SNIP]
Oops, didn't know that. Ok, so we are basically not going into Debian then. Bummer.
Indeed, especially as Debian looks to become much more widely used now that the diskpacks are being sold (for cost, of course!) in more countries. I see it working like this: newbie buys RedHat, gains feet and confidence, and at some point either has to spend ages on line (with possible ASP nonesense) buy a new commercial distribution, or go Debian. I'm thinking of it myself!
Yep, that seems to be the case. I started out a long time ago with Slackware, moved to RedHat and then Mandrake to finally arrive, where most all seasoned Linuxers seem to end up, at Debian.
Being noncommercial Debian has a few nice aspects - it won't go out of business :-), it won't ship bad stuff because of falling stock prices, and I can always (like in the Squeak community) easily get in contact with the responsible person. And the package system is the best I have ever seen.
The reason why I think Debian is important to Squeak is that there are plenty of really good programmers running Debian. And if we could attract a few of those to Squeak...
Andrew Greenberg wrote:
From a legal and policy point of view, I'm sure we could get approval to a modified Squeak-L, to the extent it embodied the corresponding portions and concessions of the APSL language. There may be a political issue, however, as Alan has seemed in the past VERY reticent to reopen the matter with Apple legal.
... and Stephen Pair wrote:
If possible, the license issue should be addressed...not because there are any real technical issues with SqueakL, but because many people seem to have problems with it because it is not blessed as an "open source" license (for a few technical reasons).
I think the requirement for a new license (if any) should be that it stick as closely as possible to the current SqueakL, and that it be blessed by www.opensource.org.
Well, SqueakL is probably already OpenSource (I guess) so I am not sure you really need to change it in order to get it blessed as that. People that only care for stuff being OpenSource and that actually do know what it means - are probably quite satisfied as is. But a stamp from Eric Raymond is always good. :-)
But being stamped as OpenSource doesn't make it "DFSG free" which means it still won't go into Debian. From what I have read on the net APSL1.2 is not "DFSG free" either - there have been quite a lot of discussion on the clauses regarding "making modifications publicly available" etc.
Debian has a rather high standard for software being free and I admire them for that distinction. Linux is spreading all over the world, especially in poor countries and, for example, the clause no 6 in SqueakL regarding "Export Law Assurances" might of course in an international view be a problem.
The two practical problems that I have sofar seen discussed with SqueakL regards compatibility with GPL/LGPL and inclusion in Debian.
If I remember correctly (and I didn't find it on the Swiki) GPL nor LGPL code can be brought into the base image but you can build a Squeak app and release it as GPL or LGPL. Is that right? Most people probably care about the last part I guess.
Andrew Greenberg also wrote:
There was, for a few versions (somewhere between 2.4 and 2.7), a message that clearly stated that contributions and changes were, unless expressly stated otherwise, made under Squeak-L. I don't think it is in the present version, but it ought to be placed back, as a matter of good legal hygiene.
Yes I second this. And perhaps we could complement the upcoming repository/modules system with some license mechanisms - easy way of stamping a license on a module and also easily have a list available describing what licenses play together etc.
regards, Göran
On Wed, 24 Oct 2001 goran.hultgren@bluefish.se wrote:
... and Stephen Pair wrote:
I think the requirement for a new license (if any) should be that it stick as closely as possible to the current SqueakL, and that it be blessed by www.opensource.org.
Well, SqueakL is probably already OpenSource (I guess) so I am not sure you really need to change it in order to get it blessed as that.
It's not in the list at http://opensource.org/licenses/ so it's not officially OpenSource. However, what is there, is the "Apple Public Source License". IANAL but maybe this licence could apply?
OTOH, how much of Squeak *really* is Apple's? The Mac VM? The image as of version x.y? The fonts? If this was identifyable, we could start a "Free Squeak" project that just implements the Apple parts from scratch. I'm really tired of all this licence babble ...
-- Bert
On Wednesday, October 24, 2001, at 05:18 AM, goran.hultgren@bluefish.se wrote:
Andrew Greenberg also wrote:
There was, for a few versions (somewhere between 2.4 and 2.7), a message that clearly stated that contributions and changes were, unless expressly stated otherwise, made under Squeak-L. I don't think it is in the present version, but it ought to be placed back, as a matter of good legal hygiene.
Yes I second this. And perhaps we could complement the upcoming repository/modules system with some license mechanisms - easy way of stamping a license on a module and also easily have a list available describing what licenses play together etc.
I'm not for the latter proposal. The LAST thing we need to do is facilitate alternative licenses for microscopic pieces of Squeak. In my view, Squeak-L needs to be fixed, yes. And thus, Squeak must be backported to Squeak-L2, yes. In the meanwhile, apart from some discomfort in some quarters and precluding publication as Debian, Squeak-L is internally consistent legally, and has no meaningful problems. A proliferation of various, potentially incompatible, and mixed-in-image licenses could ultimately kill Squeak or render it wholly unusable for most practical purposes.
Squeak-L works great for Squeak in practice -- the offensive provisions are not really all that offensive, and the community is solid. GPL will never be consistent with an image-based product unless the image-based product is GPL'd. But there are some old sores that are keeping Squeak out of the "mainstream" of open source, and they can be fixed in time. Apple has abandoned the policies for license terms that suggest we can renegotiate, and perhaps we should.
All we really need is the will to do it. In the meanwhile, the failure to include Squeak in Debian reflects, to me, more of a weakness in Debian policies than in Squeak-L, and is a shame. But in preparation for moving forward someday, how about beginning the project of compiling a list of Squeak contributors? Who will go through the image, collect the initials and at least begin to guestimate the associations with contributors and, ideally, to construct a mailing list so we can begin to set up the licensing project.
It would be a real good thing to have a hall-of-fame for those who did make Squeak what it is today -- we can begin by putting it up on the Swiki.
All this we can do right now.
We can also start to identify issues for the new license (recognizing that we can't win unless we can get an Apple, and perhaps a Disney, buy-in). Then, when the political climate is correct, we can make our move to improve. Sooner, rather than later, would be a good time for Apple.
Another observation, though perhaps more controversial, would be to begin assembling ownership or at least co-licensing rights to contributions in a foundation -- this could facilitate licensing changes, but won't generate much benefit unless consensus for the foundation is pretty broad.
Anyway, I suggest that compiling the list of helpers and putting it up on the Swiki would be a really good thing. As a practical matter, it should be easy to start with the current image, but we should also go through the old source codes as well, as interim modifications can result in losing indicia of the author of an older contribution that is manifest in the current image.
Hi Andrew, The following code: initials _ ''. timeStamp _ ''. myInitials _ 'th'."Enter your initials here" myName _ 'Torge'."Enter your name here and you will get as a Bonus all your messages" allSubmitters _ Bag new. Smalltalk browseAllSelect: [:cm | timeStamp _ Utilities timeStampForMethod: cm. initials _ timeStamp isEmpty ifTrue:[ '' ]ifFalse:[ timeStamp substrings first ]. initials _ initials isEmpty ifTrue:[ '' ]ifFalse:[ initials first isDigit ifTrue:[ 'date' ]ifFalse:[ initials ] ]. allSubmitters add: initials. (initials = myInitials)] name: myName, '''s Methods' autoSelect: nil. allSubmitters sortedCounts inspect.
produced in a recent Squeak3.1beta-4411.image:
a SortedCollection(9340->'ar' 4869->'' 4253->'sw' 3271->'di' 3035->'RAA' 2226->'jm' 1768->'tk' 1236->'ls' 1227->'NS' 945->'len' 828->'jsp' 699->'sma' 497->'acg' 436->'mir' 362->'nk' 344->'JMM' 235->'mjg' 212->'laza' 189->'bf' 142->'sr' 138->'tao' 137->'dhhi' 132->'Sames' 130->'djp' 126->'TPR' 123->'hmm' 115->'bolot' 112->'mdr' 108->'ikp' 99->'tfei' 95->'LC' 88->'MPW' 86->'sbw' 71->'dew' 66->'ti' 64->'BP' 51->'mpw' 50->'SSS' 48->'dvf' 47->'th' 43->'kfr' 40->'panda' 40->'date' 40->'SqR' 40->'wod' 39->'JW' 37->'hg' 36->'yo' 35->'stp' 31->'DSM' 30->'BJP' 27->'TBn' 26->'pnm' 22->'ccn' 22->'RCS' 21->'md' 21->'sge' 19->'jcg' 17->'nop' 17->'TAG' 17->'AK' 16->'jhm' 15->'dwh' 15->'go' 14->'MPH' 14->'TBP' 14->'raa' 12->'rhi' 12->'tpr' 11->'jrm' 9->'rew' 9->'dns' 8->'JMV' 8->'Tbp' 8->'hh' 7->'apb' 7->'svp' 6->'jlb' 5->'vb' 5->'r++' 5->'ak' 5->'JP' 5->'AM' 4->'wdc' 4->'wb' 3->'RJ' 3->'rca' 3->'pm' 3->'mn' 3->'je' 3->'raok' 3->'crl' 3->'rlf' 3->'rjf' 2->'programmatic' 2->'GVG' 2->'eat' 2->'mrm' 2->'jlm' 2->'ward' 2->'RMF' 2->'JZH' 2->'ajh' 2->'ccn+ceg' 2->'ssa' 2->'RAH' 2->'msk' 2->'mas' 2->'rww' 1->'am' 1->'de' 1->'m3r' 1->'JDD' 1->'SD' 1->'RvL' 1->'dtl' 1->'jdr' 1->'jj' 1->'jla' 1->'to' 1->'sn' 1->'jwh' 1->'JLM' 1->'mkd' 1->'SIM' 1->'rpj' 1->'djm' 1->'BEO')
Hope this helps. Torge
P.S.: I'd like it very much if the canonical fileOut messages would add to the preamble of a changeset a comment stating that the following Code is released under Squeak-L or any of it's successors. The attached changeset is not tested in any way not finished in wording.
"Andrew C. Greenberg" wrote:
On Wednesday, October 24, 2001, at 05:18 AM, goran.hultgren@bluefish.se wrote:
Andrew Greenberg also wrote:
There was, for a few versions (somewhere between 2.4 and 2.7), a message that clearly stated that contributions and changes were, unless expressly stated otherwise, made under Squeak-L. I don't think it is in the present version, but it ought to be placed back, as a matter of good legal hygiene.
Yes I second this. And perhaps we could complement the upcoming repository/modules system with some license mechanisms - easy way of stamping a license on a module and also easily have a list available describing what licenses play together etc.
I'm not for the latter proposal. The LAST thing we need to do is facilitate alternative licenses for microscopic pieces of Squeak. In my view, Squeak-L needs to be fixed, yes. And thus, Squeak must be backported to Squeak-L2, yes. In the meanwhile, apart from some discomfort in some quarters and precluding publication as Debian, Squeak-L is internally consistent legally, and has no meaningful problems. A proliferation of various, potentially incompatible, and mixed-in-image licenses could ultimately kill Squeak or render it wholly unusable for most practical purposes.
Squeak-L works great for Squeak in practice -- the offensive provisions are not really all that offensive, and the community is solid. GPL will never be consistent with an image-based product unless the image-based product is GPL'd. But there are some old sores that are keeping Squeak out of the "mainstream" of open source, and they can be fixed in time. Apple has abandoned the policies for license terms that suggest we can renegotiate, and perhaps we should.
All we really need is the will to do it. In the meanwhile, the failure to include Squeak in Debian reflects, to me, more of a weakness in Debian policies than in Squeak-L, and is a shame. But in preparation for moving forward someday, how about beginning the project of compiling a list of Squeak contributors? Who will go through the image, collect the initials and at least begin to guestimate the associations with contributors and, ideally, to construct a mailing list so we can begin to set up the licensing project.
It would be a real good thing to have a hall-of-fame for those who did make Squeak what it is today -- we can begin by putting it up on the Swiki.
All this we can do right now.
We can also start to identify issues for the new license (recognizing that we can't win unless we can get an Apple, and perhaps a Disney, buy-in). Then, when the political climate is correct, we can make our move to improve. Sooner, rather than later, would be a good time for Apple.
Another observation, though perhaps more controversial, would be to begin assembling ownership or at least co-licensing rights to contributions in a foundation -- this could facilitate licensing changes, but won't generate much benefit unless consensus for the foundation is pretty broad.
Anyway, I suggest that compiling the list of helpers and putting it up on the Swiki would be a really good thing. As a practical matter, it should be easy to start with the current image, but we should also go through the old source codes as well, as interim modifications can result in losing indicia of the author of an older contribution that is manifest in the current image.
On Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 08:58:54AM -0400, Andrew C. Greenberg wrote:
On Wednesday, October 24, 2001, at 05:18 AM, goran.hultgren@bluefish.se wrote:
Andrew Greenberg also wrote:
There was, for a few versions (somewhere between 2.4 and 2.7), a message that clearly stated that contributions and changes were, unless expressly stated otherwise, made under Squeak-L. I don't think it is in the present version, but it ought to be placed back, as a matter of good legal hygiene.
Yes I second this. And perhaps we could complement the upcoming repository/modules system with some license mechanisms - easy way of stamping a license on a module and also easily have a list available describing what licenses play together etc.
I'm not for the latter proposal. The LAST thing we need to do is facilitate alternative licenses for microscopic pieces of Squeak. In my view, Squeak-L needs to be fixed, yes. And thus, Squeak must be backported to Squeak-L2, yes. In the meanwhile, apart from some discomfort in some quarters and precluding publication as Debian, Squeak-L is internally consistent legally, and has no meaningful problems. A proliferation of various, potentially incompatible, and mixed-in-image licenses could ultimately kill Squeak or render it wholly unusable for most practical purposes.
I have a thought. Why don't we write an open-source license for Squeak goodies?
I'm envisioning something similar to the LGPL, only written to suit an image-based product and without some of the more annoying bits. In addition, it would include a clause saying something like, "You may file this code into Squeak and release the result under Squeak's license" and possibly a similar clause allowing the software to be merged with other non-trivial open-source projects.
This provides all the Squeak hackers out there with a preferred licence to slap on their projects, one which will be not be subject to license-clash headaches.
It might also solve the Squeak-L issues in the long run. If every change is released under the goodie license, we will eventually reach the point where it vastly outweighs the part of the system that's under the Squeak-L, at which point we could simply discard and re-implement it under a friendlier license.
Anyway, I suggest that compiling the list of helpers and putting it up on the Swiki would be a really good thing.
It should probably go into the released images as well, maybe tacked onto the end of the "Welcome" text. After all, we're just in this for the fame. ;-)
--Chris
On Thursday, November 1, 2001, at 03:29 AM, Chris Reuter wrote:
I have a thought. Why don't we write an open-source license for Squeak goodies?
I'm envisioning something similar to the LGPL, only written to suit an image-based product and without some of the more annoying bits.
Of course you are free to do so. Under Squeak-L, you can pretty much relicense anything subject to the terms of the Squeak-L, which does somewhat limit the scope of the license.
Please don't, however. The downsides outweigh the upside.
We are, however glacially, beginning to make progress on this front. In due course, we will be in a position to relicense the image in a manner that should please everyone, except perhaps RMS. The last thing we need to do, however, is: (1) to create a tower-of-babel, complete with license lawyering by everyone; and (2) to have added complexity limiting what can happen as we relicense.
For now, Squeak-L's downside has only been its lack of availability on an overly conservative free Unix release. An LGPL license for some, but not most of, Squeak will not satisfy the FSF "true believers," as they don't like LGPL much (changing "Library" to "Lesser" and deprecating it), but may limit the scope of what we can do later on.
I suggest we stay flexible, until we are able to make a proper pass at Apple. By the way, does anyone know if Disney has staked any claim of ownership to the SqC contributions during their tenure there?
On Thu, Nov 01, 2001 at 08:12:47AM -0500, Andrew C. Greenberg wrote:
On Thursday, November 1, 2001, at 03:29 AM, Chris Reuter wrote:
I have a thought. Why don't we write an open-source license for Squeak goodies?
I'm envisioning something similar to the LGPL, only written to suit an image-based product and without some of the more annoying bits.
Of course you are free to do so. Under Squeak-L, you can pretty much relicense anything subject to the terms of the Squeak-L, which does somewhat limit the scope of the license.
Actually, since I'm referring to code _I_ wrote. I can release those changesets under any licence I want within the bounds of copyright law. But that's beside the point and not my intention.
Please don't, however. The downsides outweigh the upside.
So what licence should I use for changesets? My reading of the Squeak-L seems to indicate that it only applies to Squeak itself. Am I wrong about this? Can I release an original changeset under the Squeak-L?
If so, then never mind.
Oh, and sorry for bringing this thread back from the dead.
--Chris
On Thursday, November 1, 2001, at 12:25 PM, Chris Reuter wrote:
On Thu, Nov 01, 2001 at 08:12:47AM -0500, Andrew C. Greenberg wrote:
On Thursday, November 1, 2001, at 03:29 AM, Chris Reuter wrote:
I have a thought. Why don't we write an open-source license for Squeak goodies?
I'm envisioning something similar to the LGPL, only written to suit an image-based product and without some of the more annoying bits.
Of course you are free to do so. Under Squeak-L, you can pretty much relicense anything subject to the terms of the Squeak-L, which does somewhat limit the scope of the license.
Actually, since I'm referring to code _I_ wrote. I can release those changesets under any licence I want within the bounds of copyright law. But that's beside the point and not my intention.
Understood, although you ARE limited somewhat, to the extent it is derived from Squeak-L code. Despite that freedom, I reiterate;
Please don't, however. The downsides outweigh the upside.
So what licence should I use for changesets? My reading of the Squeak-L seems to indicate that it only applies to Squeak itself. Am I wrong about this? Can I release an original changeset under the Squeak-L?
Yes, and that's what you should do, for now, IMHO. I don't like it best, but it preserves our options better.
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Andrew C. Greenberg -
Bert Freudenberg -
Chris Reuter -
goran.hultgren＠bluefish.se -
Torge Husfeldt