From: karl karl.ramberg@comhem.se To: Larry Trutter stargazerzero@hotmail.com Subject: Re: [Webteam] 2nd Draft of About section Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 22:35:34 +0100
Larry Trutter skrev:
From: Brad Fuller brad@bradfuller.com To: Larry Trutter stargazerzero@hotmail.com CC: webteam@lists.squeakfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Webteam] 2nd Draft of About section Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:38:56 -0800
Looks good. A few comments:
The only problem with this is that "image" has not been defined yet.
"Squeak runs bit-identical images across it"
I linked the word "images" to a definition of image in the Squeak swiki: http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/2213
Change: Smalltalk is invented to to Smalltalk was invented to implement the Dynabook http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynabook and was conceived
However, I don't think this is necessarily true. I realize Alan had dynabook in mind, but I don't know if Smalltalk was invented for the dynabook.
It was an unsuccessful attempt to transition to the Dynabook paragraph. So I got rid of "Smalltalk was.." part of the sentence.
Should we add licensing info here? I'm wondering if we should leave it out. It is changing and if people need to read the license, they can do so by taking the link on the left side of the site. That way we don't have to update the license info in several places.
What do others think?
I agree that it should be taken out. Do others agree?
I think we should mention something somewhere about the work to change the license. But I'm not sure about where. karl
Yes. Maybe on the license page?
My impression is that VPRI is taking the lead on this and Squeak Foundation is helping to contact contributors for license change. I don't know much beyond that.
-Larry Trutter
_________________________________________________________________ Laugh, share and connect with Windows Live Messenger http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://ima...
On Feb 13, 2007, at 7:06 PM, Larry Trutter wrote:
I agree that it should be taken out. Do others agree?
I think we should mention something somewhere about the work to change the license. But I'm not sure about where. karl
Yes. Maybe on the license page?
My impression is that VPRI is taking the lead on this and Squeak Foundation is helping to contact contributors for license change. I don't know much beyond that.
-Larry Trutter
This may be an unpopular viewpoint, maybe not, but I'd suggest you place it prominently as a sticky news item *on the front page* until it's finalized.
From: Alex Perez aperez@alexperez.com To: "Larry Trutter" stargazerzero@hotmail.com CC: karl.ramberg@comhem.se, webteam@lists.squeakfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Webteam] 2nd Draft of About section Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:26:53 -0800 On Feb 13, 2007, at 7:06 PM, Larry Trutter wrote:
I agree that it should be taken out. Do others agree?
I think we should mention something somewhere about the work to change the license. But I'm not sure about where. karl
Yes. Maybe on the license page?
This may be an unpopular viewpoint, maybe not, but I'd suggest you place it prominently as a sticky news item *on the front page* until it's finalized.
Looks like I haven't recieved any objections. I could proceed to remove "Squeak License" section from the "About" page; rely on the Squeak License page (no change to that page)?
To say something about the licensing change, I'll try to research the web and put a very brief statement together (hopefully, it's already in the announcement somewhere). Options are: 1) That paragraph could be in a separate section in the Squeak License page, clearly indicating that this is a news item, not part of the license section. 2) Somehow, put a sticky news items on the Front page until it's finilized 3) Or a separate page for that statement until it's finalized
Any thoughts?
-Larry Trutter
_________________________________________________________________ Find what you need at prices youll love. Compare products and save at MSN® Shopping. http://shopping.msn.com/default/shp/?ptnrid=37,ptnrdata=24102&tcode=T001...
Larry Trutter wrote:
From: Alex Perez aperez@alexperez.com To: "Larry Trutter" stargazerzero@hotmail.com CC: karl.ramberg@comhem.se, webteam@lists.squeakfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Webteam] 2nd Draft of About section Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:26:53 -0800 On Feb 13, 2007, at 7:06 PM, Larry Trutter wrote:
I agree that it should be taken out. Do others agree?
I think we should mention something somewhere about the work to change the license. But I'm not sure about where. karl
Yes. Maybe on the license page?
This may be an unpopular viewpoint, maybe not, but I'd suggest you place it prominently as a sticky news item *on the front page* until it's finalized.
Looks like I haven't recieved any objections. I could proceed to remove "Squeak License" section from the "About" page;
sounds good
rely on the Squeak License page (no change to that page)?
Would there be any problem of placing a paragraph about the changing tide at the top of the license page - explaining the current license (1 sentence), the new license and the procedure of changing the rest of squeak's versions?
After that, then stating the new license text of squeak version 1? Follow this new license with the license the covers the rest of squeak (squeak version 2.X and 3.x)?
I don't like the sticky news item - it's like an internal todo - not great for a professional presentation to squeakers and would be squeakers.
To say something about the licensing change, I'll try to research the web and put a very brief statement together (hopefully, it's already in the announcement somewhere). Options are: 1) That paragraph could be in a separate section in the Squeak License page, clearly indicating that this is a news item, not part of the license section. 2) Somehow, put a sticky news items on the Front page until it's finilized 3) Or a separate page for that statement until it's finalized
Any thoughts?
From: Brad Fuller brad@bradfuller.com To: Larry Trutter stargazerzero@hotmail.com, webteam@lists.squeakfoundation.org, aperez@alexperez.com Subject: Re: [Webteam] Squeak License section in the About page and Licensing change Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 07:19:19 -0800
Larry Trutter wrote:
From: Alex Perez aperez@alexperez.com To: "Larry Trutter" stargazerzero@hotmail.com CC: karl.ramberg@comhem.se, webteam@lists.squeakfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Webteam] 2nd Draft of About section Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:26:53 -0800 On Feb 13, 2007, at 7:06 PM, Larry Trutter wrote:
I agree that it should be taken out. Do others agree?
I think we should mention something somewhere about the work to change the license. But I'm not sure about where. karl
Yes. Maybe on the license page?
This may be an unpopular viewpoint, maybe not, but I'd suggest you place it prominently as a sticky news item *on the front page* until it's finalized.
rely on the Squeak License page (no change to that page)?
Would there be any problem of placing a paragraph about the changing tide at the top of the license page - explaining the current license (1 sentence), the new license and the procedure of changing the rest of squeak's versions?
After that, then stating the new license text of squeak version 1? Follow this new license with the license the covers the rest of squeak (squeak version 2.X and 3.x)?
I don't like the sticky news item - it's like an internal todo - not great for a professional presentation to squeakers and would be squeakers.
If the paragraph can be placed as a seperate section at the top of the License page, it could read as follows:
"Thanks to long-running efforts by folks at Viewpoints Research Institute, Apple Computer and elsewhere, Apple has given Viewpoints permission to make a release of the original public Squeak system using the *Apple Public Source License >http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/2.0.txt* .
Work is underway to change the license for all the others Squeak releases. In order to do so, all the contributors in the past ten years have to be contacted. The Squeak Foundation Board is compiling a definitive mapping of all the contributor initials in the system to their authors, so we can contact each author for explicit terms. Eventually, they like to get the entirety of Squeak available under a MIT-style license, since that seems to be the best combination of simplicity and familiarity."
(a link pointing to Craig's contributor list web site will be included)
Most of the statement comes from Craig Latta. I emailed him to confirm if the statement is still accurate.
Any comments?
thanks, Larry Trutter
_________________________________________________________________ Find what you need at prices youll love. Compare products and save at MSN® Shopping. http://shopping.msn.com/default/shp/?ptnrid=37,ptnrdata=24102&tcode=T001...
Larry Trutter wrote:
From: Brad Fuller brad@bradfuller.com To: Larry Trutter stargazerzero@hotmail.com, webteam@lists.squeakfoundation.org, aperez@alexperez.com Subject: Re: [Webteam] Squeak License section in the About page and Licensing change Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 07:19:19 -0800
Larry Trutter wrote:
From: Alex Perez aperez@alexperez.com To: "Larry Trutter" stargazerzero@hotmail.com CC: karl.ramberg@comhem.se, webteam@lists.squeakfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Webteam] 2nd Draft of About section Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:26:53 -0800 On Feb 13, 2007, at 7:06 PM, Larry Trutter wrote:
> > I agree that it should be taken out. Do others agree? I think we should mention something somewhere about the work to change the license. But I'm not sure about where. karl
Yes. Maybe on the license page?
This may be an unpopular viewpoint, maybe not, but I'd suggest you place it prominently as a sticky news item *on the front page* until it's finalized.
rely on the Squeak License page (no change to that page)?
Would there be any problem of placing a paragraph about the changing tide at the top of the license page - explaining the current license (1 sentence), the new license and the procedure of changing the rest of squeak's versions?
After that, then stating the new license text of squeak version 1? Follow this new license with the license the covers the rest of squeak (squeak version 2.X and 3.x)?
I don't like the sticky news item - it's like an internal todo - not great for a professional presentation to squeakers and would be squeakers.
If the paragraph can be placed as a seperate section at the top of the License page, it could read as follows:
"Thanks to long-running efforts by folks at Viewpoints Research Institute, Apple Computer and elsewhere, Apple has given Viewpoints permission to make a release of the original public Squeak system using the *Apple Public Source License
Work is underway to change the license for all the others Squeak releases. In order to do so, all the contributors in the past ten years have to be contacted. The Squeak Foundation Board is compiling a definitive mapping of all the contributor initials in the system to their authors, so we can contact each author for explicit terms. Eventually, they like to get the entirety of Squeak available under a MIT-style license, since that seems to be the best combination of simplicity and familiarity."
(a link pointing to Craig's contributor list web site will be included)
Most of the statement comes from Craig Latta. I emailed him to confirm if the statement is still accurate.
Any comments?
This seems good to me. I think we can put it of the license page. Karl
Larry Trutter wrote:
From: Brad Fuller brad@bradfuller.com To: Larry Trutter stargazerzero@hotmail.com, webteam@lists.squeakfoundation.org, aperez@alexperez.com Subject: Re: [Webteam] Squeak License section in the About page and Licensing change Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 07:19:19 -0800
Larry Trutter wrote:
From: Alex Perez aperez@alexperez.com To: "Larry Trutter" stargazerzero@hotmail.com CC: karl.ramberg@comhem.se, webteam@lists.squeakfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Webteam] 2nd Draft of About section Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:26:53 -0800 On Feb 13, 2007, at 7:06 PM, Larry Trutter wrote:
> > I agree that it should be taken out. Do others agree? I think we should mention something somewhere about the work to change the license. But I'm not sure about where. karl
Yes. Maybe on the license page?
This may be an unpopular viewpoint, maybe not, but I'd suggest you place it prominently as a sticky news item *on the front page* until it's finalized.
rely on the Squeak License page (no change to that page)?
Would there be any problem of placing a paragraph about the changing tide at the top of the license page - explaining the current license (1 sentence), the new license and the procedure of changing the rest of squeak's versions?
After that, then stating the new license text of squeak version 1? Follow this new license with the license the covers the rest of squeak (squeak version 2.X and 3.x)?
I don't like the sticky news item - it's like an internal todo - not great for a professional presentation to squeakers and would be squeakers.
If the paragraph can be placed as a seperate section at the top of the License page, it could read as follows:
It looks good and I'd put it on the top of the license page. I have just a few comments:
"Thanks to long-running efforts by folks at Viewpoints Research Institute, Apple Computer and elsewhere, Apple has given Viewpoints permission to make a release of the original public Squeak system using the *Apple Public Source License
I'd put in the version number to be clear. I THINK it's version 1 and 1.1, but I'm not certain. You'll have to look it up.
so:
"Apple has given Viewpoints permission to make a release of the original public Squeak (version 1.0 and 1.1) system using the ..."
Work is underway to change the license for all the others Squeak releases. In order to do so, all the contributors in the past ten years have to be contacted. The Squeak Foundation Board is compiling a definitive mapping of all the contributor initials in the system to their authors, so we can contact each author for explicit terms. Eventually, they like to get the entirety of Squeak available under a MIT-style license, since that seems to be the best combination of simplicity and familiarity."
(a link pointing to Craig's contributor list web site will be included)
I don't think this should be included, just for privacy sake.
Most of the statement comes from Craig Latta. I emailed him to confirm if the statement is still accurate.
How about putting your updates on the license page on wwwtest.squeak.org?
From: Brad Fuller brad@bradfuller.com To: webteam@lists.squeakfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Webteam] Squeak License section in the About page and Licensingchange Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 08:56:29 -0800
Larry Trutter wrote:
From: Brad Fuller brad@bradfuller.com To: Larry Trutter stargazerzero@hotmail.com, webteam@lists.squeakfoundation.org, aperez@alexperez.com Subject: Re: [Webteam] Squeak License section in the About page and Licensing change Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 07:19:19 -0800
Larry Trutter wrote:
From: Alex Perez aperez@alexperez.com To: "Larry Trutter" stargazerzero@hotmail.com CC: karl.ramberg@comhem.se, webteam@lists.squeakfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Webteam] 2nd Draft of About section Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:26:53 -0800 On Feb 13, 2007, at 7:06 PM, Larry Trutter wrote:
Would there be any problem of placing a paragraph about the changing tide at the top of the license page - explaining the current license (1 sentence), the new license and the procedure of changing the rest of squeak's versions?
After that, then stating the new license text of squeak version 1? Follow this new license with the license the covers the rest of squeak (squeak version 2.X and 3.x)?
I don't like the sticky news item - it's like an internal todo - not great for a professional presentation to squeakers and would be squeakers.
If the paragraph can be placed as a seperate section at the top of the License page, it could read as follows:
It looks good and I'd put it on the top of the license page. I have just a few comments:
"Thanks to long-running efforts by folks at Viewpoints Research Institute, Apple Computer and elsewhere, Apple has given Viewpoints permission to make a release of the original public Squeak system using the *Apple Public Source License >http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/2.0.txt* .
I'd put in the version number to be clear. I THINK it's version 1 and 1.1, but I'm not certain. You'll have to look it up.
I could only find version 1.1 for Squeak. There are version 1.0, 1.1, and 1.2 for APSL. Maybe that's where 1.0 came from.
so:
"Apple has given Viewpoints permission to make a release of the original public Squeak (version 1.0 and 1.1) system using the ..."
(a link pointing to Craig's contributor list web site will be included)
I don't think this should be included, just for privacy sake.
Good point.
Most of the statement comes from Craig Latta. I emailed him to confirm if the statement is still accurate.
How about putting your updates on the license page on wwwtest.squeak.org?
It's available now. Thanks for the feedback!
-Larry Trutter
_________________________________________________________________ Want a degree but can't afford to quit? Top school degrees online - in as fast as 1 year http://forms.nextag.com/goto.jsp?url=/serv/main/buyer/education.jsp?doSearch...
webteam@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Alex Perez -
Brad Fuller -
Karl -
Larry Trutter