<div dir="ltr">Hi Folks,<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Frank Shearar <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:frank.shearar@gmail.com" target="_blank">frank.shearar@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">On 23 September 2014 00:04, Chris Muller <<a href="mailto:asqueaker@gmail.com">asqueaker@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Frank Shearar <<a href="mailto:frank.shearar@gmail.com">frank.shearar@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> On 22 September 2014 20:10, Chris Muller <<a href="mailto:asqueaker@gmail.com">asqueaker@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Nicolas Cellier<br>
>>> <<a href="mailto:nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com">nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> 2014-09-22 17:51 GMT+02:00 David T. Lewis <<a href="mailto:lewis@mail.msen.com">lewis@mail.msen.com</a>>:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> We need positive confirmation that the code derived from that public<br>
>>>>> repository was licensed MIT, or a statement from the original author that<br>
>>>>> is now being released under MIT. I'm sure that the original author will be<br>
>>>>> happy to do that, but we do need a clear statement of license before we<br>
>>>>> can allow the code to be added to trunk.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Dave<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Sorry for the late reply.<br>
>>>> I mistakenly assumed the license problem was solved, but after verification,<br>
>>>> there is no mention of a license on the blog nor on the cincom public store<br>
>>>> repository.<br>
>>>> I have sent private e-mail to Travis 2 days ago, but haven't received an<br>
>>>> answer yet.<br>
>>>> I don't know him personnally, so I would welcome any one having a more<br>
>>>> direct channel to contact him.<br>
>>>> Without a clear answer we'll have to retract these commits.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Unless you prefer a preventive retractation right now?<br>
>>><br>
>>> Travis hasn't been involved with Smalltalk for over 2 years now<br>
>>><br>
>>> <a href="http://objology.blogspot.com/2012/05/stepping-out-of-balloon.html" target="_blank">http://objology.blogspot.com/2012/05/stepping-out-of-balloon.html</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> so its very possible you'll get no reply.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Note that Cincom reprinted his blog post under their own domain,<br>
>>> including the part that encourages to "port it to your own flavor of<br>
>>> Smalltalk".<br>
>>><br>
>>> <a href="http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/main/2010/12/tag-sortfunctions/" target="_blank">http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/main/2010/12/tag-sortfunctions/</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> If they would object to this being ported, why would they reprint it<br>
>>> and not "clarify" that point?<br>
>>><br>
>>> To me, it seems clear that this was meant for adoption by the<br>
>>> Smalltalk community at large. It would be a shame to subvert that by<br>
>>> some (mis)perceived legal technicality. We are not lawyers, but in<br>
>>> case we get no reply, if we're that concerned about a lawsuit (waged<br>
>>> by Cincom?), the SFC does have a legal resource whom we could ask to<br>
>>> evaluate it.<br>
>><br>
>> "Port" means "translate into your Smalltalk". It does not have<br>
>> anything at all to do with licences. I didn't see Travis saying "this<br>
>> is public domain",<br>
><br>
> He didn't? Then what does this mean?<br>
<br>
</div></div>If he doesn't say "in the public domain" then I fail to see how we can<br>
infer that the original code is in the public domain.<br>
<span class=""><br>
> "And you can lobby Cincom to include it in VisualWorks. Or port it<br>
> to your own flavor of Smalltalk."<br>
><br>
> Followed by:<br>
><br>
> "I did my best to write it in such a way that it would work in<br>
> Squeak or Gemstone, or whatever."<br>
><br>
> Geez its even better than MIT because he explicitly mentioned Squeak<br>
> and Gemstone, followed by "whatever".<br>
><br>
> Taken as a whole, the meaning is clear. You're hung up because it<br>
> wasn't drafted by a lawyer, approved by parliament, and stamped by the<br>
> queen..?<br>
<br>
</span>I'd like clarity as to the licence.<br>
<span class=""><br>
>> I didn't see a licence declaration, so... what?<br>
>> Hopefully Travis will come back and say "hey, you know, I'm a<br>
>> signed-up contributor to Squeak, why are you even asking?" and then we<br>
>> can all be happy.<br>
>><br>
>> Until then, we _do not know_. 'It was ported from a "public<br>
>> repository" into trunk. Everything posted to trunk is MIT.' is not an<br>
>> argument.<br>
><br>
> I was simply trying to double-answer your ambiguous question, which<br>
> didn't specify whether you were asking about the license of the<br>
> original work or the derivative work. The derivative work is<br>
> MIT-licensed by virtue of it being part of Squeak.<br>
<br>
</span>You're saying that Nicolas' implementation is the derivative work,<br>
right? That's fine.<br>
<span class=""><br>
>> And the second statement's not even true. Us saying "you<br>
>> submitted it, therefore it's MIT" is bogus.<br>
><br>
> Log into <a href="http://source.squeak.org" target="_blank">source.squeak.org</a> and click on "The Trunk" on the left side.<br>
> What do you see under "License?"<br>
<br>
</span>That's not at all the same thing. If you have an MIT licensed<br>
codebase, and copy a bunch of code in there from a GPL licensed<br>
codebase, guess what? Your codebase isn't MIT licensed anymore. (This<br>
is not a theoretical concern. It happens to real projects.)<br>
<span class=""><br>
>> The submitter needs to<br>
>> have signed the contributor agreement, _and have the right_ to sign<br>
>> such an agreement. Your work contract might not permit you to do such<br>
>> a thing.<br>
>><br>
>> And I'm not suggesting ripping anything out. Let's wait for Travis to<br>
>> respond. Hopefully someone has a more direct line to him, given that<br>
>> Nicolas has waited two days already.<br>
><br>
> Respond with what? Something like, "Yes, I really did mean what I<br>
> wrote in black and white that 'You can port it to your own flavor of<br>
> Smalltalk.'" Or do we need him to officially "stamp it" with some<br>
> kind of "MIT" stamp?<br>
<br>
</span>"Hi, that code I wrote that Nicolas ported? Public domain." That would<br>
suit me just fine.<br>
<span class=""><br>
> And, if he's too busy to do your paperwork then<br>
> throw it out?<br>
<br>
</span>Yes, to put it bluntly. I don't understand why this upsets you so<br>
much, Chris. Yes, it's annoying boring paperwork nonsense that keeps<br>
lawyers employed. It still needs doing.<br>
<span class=""><br>
>> But this is a very real problem.<br>
><br>
> No it isn't. I think you're making a problem out of nothing. What do<br>
> you think could happen? A lawsuit?<br>
<br>
</span>I'd like to be able to say, with reasonable certainty, that all the<br>
code in Trunk landed there because someone who agreed to licence their<br>
code as MIT, did so.<br>
<br>
Since Travis has actually signed the contributor agreement<br>
(<a href="http://netjam.org/squeak/contributors/contributors" target="_blank">http://netjam.org/squeak/contributors/contributors</a> under the initials<br>
TAG), checking with him is (a) just plain polite and (b) should not be<br>
a problem. (And I'd like to see his positive response in this case<br>
because his signing the agreement doesn't mean that all Smalltalk code<br>
he ever wrote that we can find is now suddenly MIT licensed.)<br></blockquote><div> </div><div>I'm doing just this. I write to Travis last night, have received a reply, sent another message to clarify and expect another message from him soon. </div></div>-- <br>best,<div>Eliot</div>
</div></div>