[Squeakfoundation]Operating procedures for a "burn the diskpacks" list?
Thu, 7 Jun 2001 11:10:31 -0400
I don't see the need for a "more standard license"...the Squeak license is
just fine (IMHO).
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of
> Paul Fernhout
> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 9:12 AM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: [Squeakfoundation]Operating procedures for a "burn the
> diskpacks" list?
> Since a Squeak "Community" Foundation would be likely to support
> subgroup mailing lists which may constitute temporary or permanent
> branches related to Squeak, it seems relevant to discuss operating
> procedures and legal charters that may be relevant to such lists.
> Background: I may eventually request a new mailing list under the Squeak
> Foundation for "blue" plane work I am interested in. Specifically, it
> would be for building up a "burn the disk packs" system inspired by
> Squeak from the ground up through an open community process under a more
> "standard" license (BSD). It is likely Squeak itself as-is may be used
> to provide scaffolding to help build the next generation system. Both
> technical "how to" and social "why to" commentary would be encouraged on
> the list. The system I am contemplating would have a more prototype
> flavor, would generally favor transparency over efficiency, would
> support a notion of versions and permissions for changes, events, and
> transactions, and would support multiple syntaxes (Smalltalk, Scheme,
> Python, Forth). You can see hints of it in submissions I have made to
> the Squeak list in terms of the Pointrel Data Repository System,
> LinksWorld, and Embedded Squeak.
> Before actually setting up such a list myself, or requesting it be set
> up (hi Cees! :-), I want to first discuss its operating procedures with
> people on this list. Here are what I see as the minimum needed for the
> list charter to produce copyrighted works with at least a reasonable
> amount of "due diligence". These procedures may be useful for other
> Squeak Foundation lists, and so I think it generally appropriate to
> discuss them here, even if I do not proceed with these plans.
> I would especially appreciate it if anyone with access to legal advice
> [Dave T?] could get get such a mailing list charter reviewed or
> imporved, especially considering that contributions will come from
> individuals in many nations.
> Note: the choice of license [BSD] is not fixed in stone yet, and I might
> consider GPL or LGPL or Apache. The work would definitely not be under
> the Squeak license as is. I would also consider handling the licensing
> provision differently than by fiat [i.e. allowing various incompatible
> licenses and sorting it out with config maps.].
> [DRAFT PROPOSAL for a mailing list charter for comments]
> The intent of this list is to discuss and create new works inspired by
> the potential demonstrated by Squeak. Here are a few restrictions on the
> list required as legal due dilligence in creating a new collaborative
> work by many individuals. Submissions are only accepted by people who
> have joined the mailing list. By joining the mailing list, every
> contributor agrees:
> A. By the act of submitting an email or other future unit of information
> exchange to the list, the author grants a irrevocable, royalty-free,
> worldwide license allowing redistribution of that contribution in total
> in any media, as well as quoting in derived works with attribution.
> B. By the act of submission of code or other "know how" to the list, the
> author grants sufficient irrevocable royalty-free, worldwide permission
> for that code or other "know how" contribution to be placed under a
> [BSD-revised] license.
> C. By the act of submission of other "creative work" to the list such as
> without limitation a logo or bitmap, the author grants a irrevocable,
> royalty-free, worldwide license allowing redistribution in total in any
> media, and unless at the time of submission announces the aesthetic
> work may not be modified without their permission, they also grant
> permission to distribute derived works (with attribution).
> D. Contributors assert that to the best of their knowledge either:
> 1. their contribution is original, and they have any required permission
> needed to make it from any relevant third party such as without
> limitation their employer, and it does not infringe any third parties
> rights, or
> 2. any non-original contribution is clearly labeled and is accompanied
> by all needed rights to contribute it to the list for use under the
> list's licensing policy.
> E. To be clear, contributors may post emails with links to other work
> not submitted to the list which is compatible with or relevant to the
> work developed on the list. Such links shall not cause the work so
> linked to be considered to be contributed under the terms of the list.
> F. Should contributors discover one of their contributions is in some
> way infringing on a copyright or patent or has some other legal problem,
> they will notify the list of such issues immediately.
> G. It is understood each contribution comes with NO WARRANTY to the
> greatest extent possible under applicable laws.
> H. If the contributor is a minor under local jurisdiction, they have
> gotten permission from their guardian for participation on the list
> under these terms.
> Comments on the operating procedure anyone? [Please save comments on the
> project or its advisability for the new list itself.]
> Also, do people have pointers to similar or better list charters?
> -Paul Fernhout
> Kurtz-Fernhout Software
> Developers of custom software and educational simulations
> Creators of the Garden with Insight(TM) garden simulator
> Squeakfoundation mailing list