Hi all--

	Cees writes:

 > ...I'm happy too. Just like I was happy with Andreas telling he
 > wasn't going to spend time on Tweak-in-current-Squeak. Because
 > answering in a clear way that you're not going to do it creates
 > clarity and thus room for discussing alternatives.

	Great... and I'll point out again that I've said this before on the 
list, and it's been on the Flow website for quite some time. :)  I think 
I've been pretty clear about this since I started Spoon in February 2003.

 > I take it, then, that the current version of Flow you have on the
 > website has been 'thrown over the wall', IOW if we grab it and munch
 > it beyond recognition to get it into the image, you'd be ok?

	Sure, and this isn't the first time, either. John McIntosh did that 
very thing a few years ago (and I even disliked the result, too ;). It's 
not like I can really do anything about it. :)  The other example, of 
course, is the adaptation of Flow in Slate (Brian Rice asked me about it 
in early 2003, as I recall).


	Stef writes:

 > what is the license of flow I could not find it on the web?

	Flow, being part of Spoon since Spoon 1a1 of 14 February 2004, uses the 
Spoon license, a license trivially derived from the 22 July 1999 version 
of the BSD license (the one without the advertising clause), following 
the BSD derivation instructions at opensource.org as of Wednesday, 11 
February 2004. You can read the Spoon license at 
http://www.netjam.org/spoon/releases/current/. I chose to derive from 
BSD in February 2004 at the request of a project that was considering 
using Spoon at the time (so they could entirely avoid all conversation 
about licenses with their funder).

	I consider the Spoon license, the BSD license from which it derives, 
and the MIT license to be clearly compatible, requiring no special 
action. If someone wants me to make an additional license affordance 
(MIT being the obvious one), just ask and I'll wave the dead chicken 
over it. :)  At the moment I first released Spoon I asked for feedback 
about the license.

 > with your approach we would really cool stuff never integrated

	I'm sorry Stef, sometimes your English is barely readable (but still 
better than my French :). Do you mean with my approach some really cool 
stuff would never be integrated? If so, I disagree. I think we're doing 
what I'd like to see: we're finding the boundaries between packages in 
current Squeak while I work on a minimal system that can load and unload 
them. We just haven't met up yet. In the meantime, we're using our usual 
integration mechanisms (Monticello, etc.). Note that I don't think any 
of those mechanisms necessarily need to be thrown out with Spoon. Naiad 
(Spoon's module system) is optional (I'll be using it for my own 
projects, though).

 > evolution is a slow process...

	Working on Spoon is also a slow process. :)  And again, I don't see 
these as competing activities. I think they are both crucial to the 
system I'd like to use.

 > ...and squeak is less and less bloated.

	I don't mean to denigrate Squeak at all by pointing out its system 
organization problems (with the shorthand "bloat"). I see it as the 
first step to solving the problems.

 > Of course cleaning is not fun.

	Indeed, there's no need to tell me that. :)  I'm not working on Spoon 
because cleaning isn't fun. I'm working on it because I saw it as an 
unaddressed area and one where I could make a useful contribution.


	thanks again,

-C

-- 
Craig Latta
improvisational musical informaticist
www.netjam.org
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]