Freeing Squeak (license-wise)

Daniel Vainsencher danielv at netvision.net.il
Thu Mar 13 06:44:16 UTC 2003


Ok, let's do it. I think most people agree it should happen, so here's a
draft plan, please help implement and/or suggest fixes to the plan.

As I see it, this requires the following -
A. Someone please track down/create the code for extracting
participants. Could also be a SmaCC parser of sources files that
extracts only this information. Remember it has to get, as Andrew says
all the history - we need to get as close as possible to the maximal
list of authors that have any interest.

B. We need to have a bunch of images to work from. I seem to remember
some people have actually made images that include changes across
versions. Please speak up!

C. A specific, well-honed statement that people can answer, given the
answers to which, we can pick a response. I append a draft at one below.
Don't send signed statements anywhere yet, we'll have to prepare a
serious version first. This is a first draft, and IANALBASOTI. Andrew,
do you think something like the below could save us from having the
License Discussion from Hell, and be binding enough, and flexible enough
to negotiate with? if you do, please modify it as you think best.

D. After we have a statement and and some statistics, we begin gathering
signed statements, starting from the top contributors (SqC + top 20 +
Apple + Disney) and that's the vote of the stakeholder. Statement is
designed to (I hope) leave the choice of what specific solution will
happen to the negotiators with Apple/Disney.

Proposed release statement:
**********************************************
I <fullest name>
Agree that my any interest I have in Squeak code that has ever been
integrated in a squeak update issued is hereby, perpetually (delete
either options or specific licenses that you don't agree to[1]) -
A. Assigned to Squeak e.V.
B. Licensed, regardless of what license statements it may have included
at the time, under all of the below licenses, as chosen by the licensee.
Thus release of said work under any one of these licenses is authorized
-
- BSD license
- MIT license
- APSL license
[1] To delete A or B, delete its lines completely and nothing else. To
delete a license, delete its line, and nothing else. That way we can
process these easily.
**********************************************

A few comments:

The point of this statement is to give us the most options to get from
here to license independence, taking into account that we need Apple's
cooperation, and if they've a solution they prefer (and satisfies us),
our best option is probably to go along with that specific solution. 
The point of A would be to enable us, if we get peoples and Apples
agreement, to transfer license to Squeak e.V., as either a permanent or
temporary holder of interest (proxy for a future Squeak Foundation).
Having one body with all interest in the code would simplify things,
assuming they amend their bylaws to ensure everyone is happy with their
control over things.

When people answer, it is very important that you really not delete any
option, unless you actually *prefer for your code to be excised from the
image, rather than release it thus*. Understand that this has enough
participants that we need to do it ONCE, and the preferences of people
that are picky WILL clash with some other picky person. If you are
unpicky, it means we have the maximal freedom when negotiating with
Apple. And we need it.

Action points about the statement -
1. We should get precise versions of the licenses (APSL 1.2, etc). 
2. Are there additional licenses that are absolutely critical to add? We
DONT want to make this overly complicated. 
3. We should convert this to the best binding legalese we can. Maybe the
FSF's transfer of interest (which they do for all GNU projects) is a
resource to work from.

Daniel

"Andrew C. Greenberg" <werdna at mucow.com> wrote:
> Let us begin by tracking the user codes for all changes in the image 
> since 1.0.  Then, let us try to identify all those who have made such 
> contributions.  Assuming that all those changes are still manifest in 
> the image, we then try to get all those people to sign on.  If there 
> are holdouts, we can worry about how either to excise their 
> contributions, or whether their contributions remain in the image in 
> any case.
> 
> I think that is the best we can practically do, and it ought to be 
> enough.  As I remember, when last computed, the vast majority of 
> changes came from Squeak Central and a relatively small group of 
> contributors.
> 
> Of course, the hard part is finding a substitute license that everyone 
> can agree on.  I like the BSD idea, but there are still some who prefer 
> a viral solution, at least for the interpreter code.  For my part, i 
> think it is better to go KISS -- BSD is a nice, minimalist, 
> OSI-acceptable license that works.  Key signons will need to come not 
> only from individuals, but in some cases from their employers if 
> working on Squeak was within the scope, which means we will probably 
> need to get signoffs from at least Disney and Apple.
> 
> It can be done, but we need to decide to do it.
> 
> On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 02:34 AM, goran.hultgren at bluefish.se 
> wrote:
> 
> > "Andrew C. Greenberg" <werdna at mucow.com> wrote:
> >> As much as I agree with this (and like BSD over any other alternatives
> >> suggested to date), merely obtaining Apple's consensus would not
> >> suffice.  The Intellectual Property in Squeak is owned by each and
> >> every one of the contributors (or their employers if developed during
> >> scope of employment) thereafter.  Not only Apple, but each and every
> >> other contributor would also have to sign on to the new license, or in
> >> the alternative, the contributions excised.
> >
> > Can you think of any practical way of performing this "sign on"?
> >
> > Just curious.
> >
> > regards, Göran
> >
> >



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list