On Wednesday, October 24, 2001, at 05:18 AM, goran.hultgren@bluefish.se wrote:
Andrew Greenberg also wrote:
There was, for a few versions (somewhere between 2.4 and 2.7), a message that clearly stated that contributions and changes were, unless expressly stated otherwise, made under Squeak-L. I don't think it is in the present version, but it ought to be placed back, as a matter of good legal hygiene.
Yes I second this. And perhaps we could complement the upcoming repository/modules system with some license mechanisms - easy way of stamping a license on a module and also easily have a list available describing what licenses play together etc.
I'm not for the latter proposal. The LAST thing we need to do is facilitate alternative licenses for microscopic pieces of Squeak. In my view, Squeak-L needs to be fixed, yes. And thus, Squeak must be backported to Squeak-L2, yes. In the meanwhile, apart from some discomfort in some quarters and precluding publication as Debian, Squeak-L is internally consistent legally, and has no meaningful problems. A proliferation of various, potentially incompatible, and mixed-in-image licenses could ultimately kill Squeak or render it wholly unusable for most practical purposes.
Squeak-L works great for Squeak in practice -- the offensive provisions are not really all that offensive, and the community is solid. GPL will never be consistent with an image-based product unless the image-based product is GPL'd. But there are some old sores that are keeping Squeak out of the "mainstream" of open source, and they can be fixed in time. Apple has abandoned the policies for license terms that suggest we can renegotiate, and perhaps we should.
All we really need is the will to do it. In the meanwhile, the failure to include Squeak in Debian reflects, to me, more of a weakness in Debian policies than in Squeak-L, and is a shame. But in preparation for moving forward someday, how about beginning the project of compiling a list of Squeak contributors? Who will go through the image, collect the initials and at least begin to guestimate the associations with contributors and, ideally, to construct a mailing list so we can begin to set up the licensing project.
It would be a real good thing to have a hall-of-fame for those who did make Squeak what it is today -- we can begin by putting it up on the Swiki.
All this we can do right now.
We can also start to identify issues for the new license (recognizing that we can't win unless we can get an Apple, and perhaps a Disney, buy-in). Then, when the political climate is correct, we can make our move to improve. Sooner, rather than later, would be a good time for Apple.
Another observation, though perhaps more controversial, would be to begin assembling ownership or at least co-licensing rights to contributions in a foundation -- this could facilitate licensing changes, but won't generate much benefit unless consensus for the foundation is pretty broad.
Anyway, I suggest that compiling the list of helpers and putting it up on the Swiki would be a really good thing. As a practical matter, it should be easy to start with the current image, but we should also go through the old source codes as well, as interim modifications can result in losing indicia of the author of an older contribution that is manifest in the current image.