[Squeakfoundation]urrrghh - ask for lawyer
Mark Mullin
squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org
Thu, 31 Jan 2002 10:42:57 -0500
The comment about sleeping lions is well taken, but I've worked with apple
legal before, when they had their own building and were really mean (and
overfed, happily :-)
I'd wait till all the heavies on this board weigh in for a concensus, but we
do have a lawyer with some time he owes us and a lot of experience with our
software and protecting it. I think he could probably do the job for us as
a community, I'd volunteer him for the trenches if there is community
interest, with the goal being absolute clarification (given legalese) of
what's a hands off integration relationship with squeak, i.e. solid
protection for plugin apps that do not have any squeak side modifications
that aren't open sourced. In my own case, protect my plugin and let me keep
my copyright on my unique grammar for communicating with my plugin, I'll
even cough up _all_ my squeak side code, base platform or pure application.
If you're amenable or opposed to this idea, send me a note. I'll tabulate
results for a few days and then repost them, and everybody can pitch in and
bitch :-)
This is presupposing I'm not murdered on .dev for casting aspersions at
iterator loop speeds.......
Regards
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: squeakfoundation-admin@lists.squeakfoundation.org
[mailto:squeakfoundation-admin@lists.squeakfoundation.org]On Behalf Of
squeakfoundation-request@lists.squeakfoundation.org
Sent: None
To: squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org
Subject: Squeakfoundation digest, Vol 1 #94 - 10 msgs
Send Squeakfoundation mailing list submissions to
squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
squeakfoundation-request@lists.squeakfoundation.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
squeakfoundation-admin@lists.squeakfoundation.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Squeakfoundation digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: What I would like to promote (Bijan Parsia)
2. RE: Squeakfoundation digest, Vol 1 #93 - 8 msgs (Mark Mullin)
3. Re: What I would like to promote (Dan Ingalls)
4. Re: RE: Squeakfoundation digest, Vol 1 #93 - 8 msgs (Cees de Groot)
5. AW: [Squeakfoundation]RE: Squeakfoundation digest, Vol 1 #93 - 8 msgs
(Andreas Raab)
6. Re: What I would like to promote (Dan Ingalls)
7. AW: [Squeakfoundation]What I would like to promote (Andreas Raab)
8. Re: AW: [Squeakfoundation]RE: Squeakfoundation digest, Vol 1 #93 - 8
msgs (Cees de Groot)
9. Re: AW: [Squeakfoundation]What I would like to promote (Cees de Groot)
10. Re: AW: [Squeakfoundation]What I would like to promote
(goran.hultgren@bluefish.se)
--__--__--
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 08:25:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@email.unc.edu>
To: squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]What I would like to promote
Reply-To: squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, ducasse wrote:
> > Yes. Celeste mostly, at the moment. It really needs to be split up, and
> > some of the classes it depends upon (E.g., MailDB) need, themselves to
be
> > refactored.
>
>
> So celeste could be a good testbed for a refactoring process. Have you
> approach the celeste users and the people taking care of it.
There have been rumbles on the squeak-dev list from time to time ;)
> Could you set
> up a war plan to clean celeste?
I think so.
Celeste is also interesting because it has a lot of functionality that
even non-Celeste users might want. For example, sometimes you want to
compose and send an email message from Squeak, but *don't* want to be a
full fledged Celeste user. (E.g., mailing changesets/bugs/etc. to the
list). There are a variety of Celeste UIs, etc.
> It would be good to extract celeste from the squeak image, do a call for
> tests and lead a refactoring efforts. This way we could:
> - have a better celeste
> - learn in the process
Yep. And gain a few things in the process. Celeste's persistence mechanism
is a tad primative...but useful! If it can be made so that the *interface*
is relatively stable, but the storage backend and filter/query process
were registerable, well, that would rule :)
> I think that Celeste is "well" separated from the core so this could be
> interesting to try.
Yes.
Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.
--__--__--
Message: 2
From: "Mark Mullin" <mark@vibrant3d.com>
To: <squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 10:32:22 -0500
Subject: [Squeakfoundation]RE: Squeakfoundation digest, Vol 1 #93 - 8 msgs
Reply-To: squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org
OK, Cees seems to know whereof he speaks, he certainly calls our concerns
out clearly, I'm off to read the GNU Library license again.
I'd be curious if anyone has already clarified it's application to the
reverse situation, i.e. our VR engine is fundamentally a (great big fat
badtempered) plugin library for Squeak. We have no problem giving away any
changes we make to squeak or any non-VR code, we just want to protect our
copyrights on our core library plugin. Anyone seen how the LGPL has been
applied to this, say in creating 3rd party commercial libraries for gnu
compilers.
Re the death of IP in general, Cees, I'd tend to agree, software patents
show how low we are sinking. On the other hand, one needs to make a living.
And in general, if you give it away and ask them to pay if it works, you
starve.
Mark
--__--__--
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 07:49:09 -0800
To: squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org
From: Dan Ingalls <Dan@SqueakLand.org>
Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]What I would like to promote
Reply-To: squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org
> >
>> Yes. Celeste mostly, at the moment. It really needs to be split up, and
>> some of the classes it depends upon (E.g., MailDB) need, themselves to be
>> refactored.
>
>
>So celeste could be a good testbed for a refactoring process. Have you
>approach the celeste users and the people taking care of it. Could you set
>up a war plan to clean celeste?
>
>It would be good to extract celeste from the squeak image, do a call for
>tests and lead a refactoring efforts. This way we could:
> - have a better celeste
> - learn in the process
>
>I think that Celeste is "well" separated from the core so this could be
>interesting to try.
I agree. If you look at changeSet #3746, ...
-----------------
Introduces a new image partitioning tool that is essentially a local version
of majorShrink. The idea is to pick some application like Scamper, or some
cluster like all the 3D classes, and remove it, and also remove everything
that is solely referred to by it. The way it works is:
Record all unsent messages and unused classes at the outset
Mark the application or cluster as removed
Note all *newly* unreferenced methods and unused classes
and iteratively remove them as well
For example, the expression
Smalltalk reportClassAndMethodRemovalsFor: #(Celeste Scamper MailMessage)
reports 63 classes and 155 other messages that can be removed.
Also, introduces a new method, fileOutAndRemove:... that will take such
results, build a changeSet from them, fileOut everything that is about to be
removed, and then remove all of the classes and related messages as well.
For the above example, this method produces a 290k fileOut, and saves about
104k from the system. More importantly, if you fileIn the changeSet
afterward, the system returns to approximately its former size, and you can
run Scamper again. It's a way to fileOut a package that never existed.
-------------------
So a year ago, that group and that method (for which there is now equivalent
code in modules) worked perfectly as a module a year ago.
- Dan
--__--__--
Message: 4
To: squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org
From: cg@home.cdegroot.com (Cees de Groot)
Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]RE: Squeakfoundation digest, Vol 1 #93 - 8
msgs
Date: 30 Jan 2002 17:23:47 +0100
Organization: cdegroot.com
Reply-To: squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org
Mark Mullin <mark@vibrant3d.com> said:
>I'd be curious if anyone has already clarified it's application to the
>reverse situation, i.e. our VR engine is fundamentally a (great big fat
>badtempered) plugin library for Squeak.
That centers around "If the Modified Software contains modifications,
overwrites, replacements, deletions, additions, or ports to new platforms
of:
(1) [class lib], or (2) any part of the virtual machine, then [you have to
share the source].
I would not call a plugin library an addition to the virtual machine - the
VM
is for me the SLANG stuff plus the platform glue, and I think that that's
what
is meant in the license.
I *think* that Apple did not mean to call a plugin library an addition
to the virtual machine. However, a bad-tempered lawyer at Apple *could*
construe your plugin library to be an addition to the virtual machine. Given
the track record of big companies' legal teams smelling profit, blood, or
just
fun, I'd get a statement from Apple "we don't consider the vibrant 3D plugin
as a blahblahblah"...
(even though I always had A's in business school for Law: I.A.N.A.L.)
--
Cees de Groot http://www.cdegroot.com <cg@cdegroot.com>
GnuPG 1024D/E0989E8B 0016 F679 F38D 5946 4ECD 1986 F303 937F E098 9E8B
--__--__--
Message: 5
From: "Andreas Raab" <Andreas.Raab@gmx.de>
To: <squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Subject: AW: [Squeakfoundation]RE: Squeakfoundation digest, Vol 1 #93 - 8
msgs
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 19:21:36 +0100
Reply-To: squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org
> I would not call a plugin library an addition to the virtual
> machine - the VM is for me the SLANG stuff plus the platform glue,
> and I think that that's what is meant in the license.
At the time the license was written, there was no such concept as a
Squeak VM plugin. However, one of my major motivations for doing the VM
plugins was in particular to be able to "access" proprietary code. In
other words, a plugin is nothing but an optimized FFI interface (it
really is). That's my way of thinking about it and I don't believe that
anyone would consider some function called through FFI being an
"addition to" the virtual machine.
> I *think* that Apple did not mean to call a plugin library an addition
> to the virtual machine. However, a bad-tempered lawyer at
> Apple *could* construe your plugin library to be an addition
> to the virtual machine.
That reminds of a recent conversation with a lawyer. Asking "okay, so
how can make this issue airtight" the response was "Heck, you are
talking about law here! There is no such thing as 'airtight' in law.
Companies can sue you and they _will_ sue you no matter what you do."
> Given the track record of big companies'
> legal teams smelling profit, blood, or just fun, I'd get a
> statement from Apple "we don't consider the vibrant 3D plugin
> as a blahblahblah"...
Actually, having a number of companies ask for their permission might
just raise their interest. Don't wake sleeping lions...
Cheers,
- Andreas
--__--__--
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 11:07:34 -0800
To: squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org
From: Dan Ingalls <Dan@SqueakLand.org>
Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]What I would like to promote
Reply-To: squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org
ducasse <ducasse@iam.unibe.ch> wrote...
>I think that Celeste is "well" separated from the core so this could be
>interesting to try.
Hi Stef -
I've been reflecting more on this since responding to your message. I
completely defer to you and Henrik on which way to go, but I see a choice
here:
Either we...
Find various small things that are pretty modular and do them first
Or we...
Take various big chunks that are pretty modular and do them first.
By "big chunks", I'm thinking along the lines of the various discardX
methods in SystemdDictionary (like all of 3D, all of networking, etc). So
this would mean instead of doing Celeste, we do all of Networking as a
chunk. Then *later* we refine this and break networking down into Celeste,
Scamper, IRC, HTML, PWS, etc.
I just have the feeling that it might not be much harder to draw isolation
lines around the big chunks than it is around the little ones, and the
payoff might be higher, in that it might *soon* be possible for mere mortals
to perform their own versions of majorShrink, and have it really work.
As I say, I'm happy to go with whatever you guys decide, but I did want to
call attention to the choice, and have you make a conscious decision.
- Dan
--__--__--
Message: 7
From: "Andreas Raab" <Andreas.Raab@gmx.de>
To: <squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Subject: AW: [Squeakfoundation]What I would like to promote
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 00:04:20 +0100
Reply-To: squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org
Dan,
Personally, I'm in for some of the larger chunks first. Why? Well, for
one thing it's going to test out the framework in some areas that'll
really benefit all of us. Secondly, it's perhaps not as easy to define
the boundaries for an application like Celeste (some people have already
pointed out that some of the stuff Celeste is doing might be of interest
for other apps so a careful definition of boundaries is important).
Thirdly, having fast and "big" results (like the ability to cut out and
load stuff like Wonderland and 3D) will convince people that we're
_seriously_ talking about modularity and encourage them to build their
own designs into their frameworks.
Just my =80.02,
- Andreas
> -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: squeakfoundation-admin@lists.squeakfoundation.org=20
> [mailto:squeakfoundation-admin@lists.squeakfoundation.org] Im=20
> Auftrag von Dan Ingalls
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 30. Januar 2002 20:08
> An: squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org
> Betreff: Re: [Squeakfoundation]What I would like to promote
>=20
>=20
> ducasse <ducasse@iam.unibe.ch> wrote...
> >I think that Celeste is "well" separated from the core so=20
> this could be
> >interesting to try.
>=20
> Hi Stef -
>=20
> I've been reflecting more on this since responding to your=20
> message. I completely defer to you and Henrik on which way=20
> to go, but I see a choice here:
>=20
> Either we...
> Find various small things that are pretty modular and do them first
>=20
> Or we...
> Take various big chunks that are pretty modular and do them first.
>=20
> By "big chunks", I'm thinking along the lines of the various=20
> discardX methods in SystemdDictionary (like all of 3D, all of=20
> networking, etc). So this would mean instead of doing=20
> Celeste, we do all of Networking as a chunk. Then *later* we=20
> refine this and break networking down into Celeste, Scamper,=20
> IRC, HTML, PWS, etc.
>=20
> I just have the feeling that it might not be much harder to=20
> draw isolation lines around the big chunks than it is around=20
> the little ones, and the payoff might be higher, in that it=20
> might *soon* be possible for mere mortals to perform their=20
> own versions of majorShrink, and have it really work.
>=20
> As I say, I'm happy to go with whatever you guys decide, but=20
> I did want to call attention to the choice, and have you make=20
> a conscious decision.
>=20
> - Dan
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> Squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
>=20
>=20
--__--__--
Message: 8
To: squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org
From: cg@home.cdegroot.com (Cees de Groot)
Subject: Re: AW: [Squeakfoundation]RE: Squeakfoundation digest, Vol 1 #93 -
8 msgs
Date: 31 Jan 2002 08:33:29 +0100
Organization: cdegroot.com
Reply-To: squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org
Andreas Raab <Andreas.Raab@gmx.de> said:
>[...]. That's my way of thinking about it and I don't believe that
>anyone would consider some function called through FFI being an
>"addition to" the virtual machine.
>[...]
>Actually, having a number of companies ask for their permission might
>just raise their interest. Don't wake sleeping lions...
>
Maybe it'd be an idea if SqC would ask Apple for a clarification here. I
think
it is a very important issue that we can make clear (in terms that a lawyer
will accept) what is and what isn't allowed in the area of proprietary
extensions - if you want to make a product a success, you need to be
prepared
for companies wanting to earn money with it. The plugin bit seems to be a
big
hole in the license...
(or maybe it would be enough to strike the term 'plugin' and call it
'fastFFI'
;-))
You may be right with your remark about now waking sleeping lawyers. I may
be right with my remark about better being safe than sorry. WANL (we are not
lawyers). IMHO, the fact that this arouses questions that I feel we cannot
answer is a bug that should be fixed.
--
Cees de Groot http://www.cdegroot.com <cg@cdegroot.com>
GnuPG 1024D/E0989E8B 0016 F679 F38D 5946 4ECD 1986 F303 937F E098 9E8B
--__--__--
Message: 9
To: squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org
From: cg@home.cdegroot.com (Cees de Groot)
Subject: Re: AW: [Squeakfoundation]What I would like to promote
Date: 31 Jan 2002 08:34:14 +0100
Organization: cdegroot.com
Reply-To: squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org
Andreas Raab <Andreas.Raab@gmx.de> said:
>Personally, I'm in for some of the larger chunks first.
>
Add my vote to that.
--
Cees de Groot http://www.cdegroot.com <cg@cdegroot.com>
GnuPG 1024D/E0989E8B 0016 F679 F38D 5946 4ECD 1986 F303 937F E098 9E8B
--__--__--
Message: 10
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 11:01:10 +0100
Subject: Re: AW: [Squeakfoundation]What I would like to promote
To: squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org
From: goran.hultgren@bluefish.se
Reply-To: squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org
cg@home.cdegroot.com (Cees de Groot) wrote:
> Andreas Raab <Andreas.Raab@gmx.de> said:
> >Personally, I'm in for some of the larger chunks first.
> >
> Add my vote to that.
Another vote too. By the way - I have voting capability on SqueakDot
now, so I added this one, and I have already voted for me, Cees and
Andreas - vote here:
http://marvin.bluefish.se:8080/squeakdot
This is what I referred to as the "Cell Splitting Approach". :-)
regards, Göran
--__--__--
_______________________________________________
Squeakfoundation mailing list
Squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
End of Squeakfoundation Digest