[ANN] Closure Compiler
Jimmie Houchin
jhouchin at texoma.net
Thu Mar 27 01:50:12 UTC 2003
Andrew C. Greenberg wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 05:54 PM, Cees de Groot wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2003-03-26 at 18:12, Andrew C. Greenberg wrote:
>>
>>> Betcha it would be easy to do so, if only we can get the institutions
>>> in line and some consensus for a license.
>>
>> And that, my dear listeners, remains the $1000 question for today.
>>
>> The issue is of course:
>> - how, when are we going to take concerted action;
>> - when are we going to decide that the institutions are not coming into
>> line and keep hurting ourselves with license discussions and
>> restrictions on what to include for a possible future?
>>
>> As a realist, I don't think they are going to bother. There's nothing to
>> gain either for Apple or for Disney, and there's a decent cost
>> associated with it (I cannot imagine that they are simply going to sign
>> on a license switch without due process involving a legal councel,
>> etcetera). It'd be nice to think that they would be interested in good
>> PR for us folks, 1000-and-some hackers around a great product, but I
>> don't think so.
>>
>> As an idealist, I say we should attempt it nevertheless. However, we
>> should *do* something (which, I fear, SqC should come into action)
>> instead of debating this every 6 months.
It's hard to see an end to these discussions, until some kind of attempt
is made and an understanding of Apple's intentions or thoughts are.
I think the fear of revocability is the driving factor for doing
nothing. My naive and non-legal professional opinion is that Apple will
agree to some or all of our wish or the Squeak-L will remain as is.
If the worst that came out is the Squeak-L remains, we are still in
great shape and this can become part of an FAQ. Then we can just say if
you want a license discussion create a Yahoo list. :)
I agree with many that think the Squeak-L isn't a bad license.
I also agree with the many who think it can be improved.
I think it would be nice to give it our best shot.
> I'm game. Like I said, is there any consensus on which way to proceed,
> which license to use, and is the community willing to adopt it? Then we
> spar with the masters, and see how we do. If we fail, the alternative
> is the status quo (which isn't so bad) or a clean room under a new
> license (which looks like it would be fun).
>
> Yes, it might slow things down for a while, but hey, what make you think
> that the kazillion messages we bandy about on this subject aren't making
> for worse. There are FAR MORE EXCELLENT TECHNICAL WIZARDS HERE THAN
> LAWYERS. IF WE SPENT A FRACTION OF THE TIME WE SPENT LICENSE-LAWYERING
> ON THE CLEAN ROOM, IT WOULD ALREADY BE DONE.
Excellent point. I think this can go back to Alan's comment about using
Squeak to bootstrap something better. Squeak isn't the end, but a means
to get to where we want to go.
> But first we need a consensus for a license. What shall it be?
>
> a) BSDish?
> b) Squeakish with minor repairs?
> c) GPLish?
> d) dedicationish?
I am pro BSDish as I am pro as much liberty as is obtainable. I have no
problem with commercial development taking place with Squeak. The OS
community will always have its version of Squeak.
> Moreover, are we constrained in any way by the original Xerox seed
> license? (It has been suggested that the Smalltalk-80 image is free for
> arbitrary relicensing for the blessed seed companies -- is that true in
> fact?) Or are we in fact constrained by Apple?
>
> These will guide our decision.
Good questions. Answers are probably more challenging.
That was very interesting language stated for the Smalltalk-80 v1.
I think we would take it. :)
Jimmie Houchin
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|