[ANN] Closure Compiler
Jimmie Houchin
jhouchin at texoma.net
Thu Mar 27 04:18:49 UTC 2003
Hello Dean,
My apologies if I sounded offended. My general policy is not to take
offense even if offense was intended. I did feel the message was
somewhat unnecessarily antagonistic.
In the context I felt negotiation was used as a negative term. It still
feels that way to me. As I said negotiation might technically be
correct, but inaccurate concerning the spirit of my usage of dialogue. I
don't consider myself in negotiations when I discuss what's for dinner
with my wife even tho' that too would technically qualify.
My perspective is simple.
If possible I think it would be nice for Squeak to have the best license
it can. The Squeak-L is reasonably acceptable and reasonably free.
I don't view Apple as the enemy or bad guy. I don't view Disney that way
either. They both have large staffs of attorneys and are not shy about
legal engagements. I just don't believe we are on their radar for such.
There would be little to gain. I don't think Apple would really revoke
the license. I am not necessarily convinced they can. But they could try.
Apple freely received from Xerox a generous license for Smalltalk-80.
Apple freely gave to the Squeak community, Squeak with a generous license.
I read little in the way of Apple's desire for control in the Squeak
License. I read much in Apple's desire for protection.
Apple (and Disney) has exercised no control over Squeak after releasing
it. Neither has shown a desire to do so. At least that is my
understanding or view.
I think a new license which is cleaner and more accurate in representing
Squeak could be just as protective of Apple.
I view approaching Apple as one approaches a generous benefactor or
patron. We have not been a burden upon Apple. We would like to
graciously ask a favor.
I really believe we only have to gain. I believe status quo is the worst
case scenario. I may be alone in that. If so, I'll concede and go with
community consenses. I'll shut up and do my best to leave license talks
alone. :)
I may be a Pollyanna, but I see no reason to fear.
Jimmie Houchin
Swan, Dean wrote:
> Hi Jimmie,
>
> I am admittedly assuming a worst case scenario. You are quite
> correct: I have no knowledge of what Apple's opinion is on this
> matter. My opinion is based on the idea that Apple is content with
> the current situation and may not be receptive to entertaining a
> dialogue.
>
> While we may have nothing but friendly intentions, just as a
> sleeping dog may bite a child who only wants to pet it, there is the
> possibility that Apple may not be interested in dealing with this
> issue. My hesitation is largely based on various hearsay accounts of
> Apple's CEO's predilection towards being unpredictable and sometimes
> volatile. If there's even a slight chance that the dog might bite me,
> I try not to disturb it.
>
> Perhaps my position is unnecessarily conservative.
>
> I'm just sticking my $0.02 worth by stating my opinion. I
> will gladly yield to the consensus.
>
> I don't think your BSD proposal is inherently wrong. I am just
> concerned that it could possibly result in Apple changing the license
> to something more restrictive, which would be worse for "us". I
> realize the possibility might be remote, but I'm paranoid and cynical. ;-)
>
> So, if people who know better think your idea is the way to go,
> I have no problem with that. Your reply just sounded like you may have
> taken offense. None was intended.
>
> -Dean
>
> P.S. My personal definitions-
>
> Dialogue: discussing something that everybody already agrees on.
> Negotiation: discussing something that is not already agreed upon.
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Jimmie Houchin [mailto:jhouchin at texoma.net]
>>Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 2:46 PM
>>To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
>>Subject: Re: [ANN] Closure Compiler
>>
>>
>>Hello Dean,
>>
>>Nothing I stated intimated having an upper hand. I spoke of
>>dialogue, a
>>discussion. I never said negotiation. However, nothing is
>>improved with
>>Apple's consent or 'signing off' without dialogue.
>>
>>If you wish to call the dialogue a negotiation, fine. You may be
>>technically correct. However, I don't call many discussions which are
>>meant to determine an outcome, a negotiation.
>>
>>There is nothing unfriendly about what I suggested. We have
>>no idea what
>>Apple's opinion is on this matter at all until a dialogue is
>>begun with
>>an appropriate party. Apple may be perfectly happy to sign
>>off on a BSD
>>license. I don't know, do you? Apple may want something more
>>restrictive. If so fine. We (whomever) can talk.
>>
>>I spoke of issues. Some don't have any. Fine.
>>I believe there are some reasonable things to discuss about
>>the license.
>>However, we will have nothing to discuss with Apple, nothing
>>for Apple
>>to sign off on if we don't have what issues we would like
>>addressed. It
>>would be naive to think that Apple would sign off on anything without
>>reading it and determining what it says and what is different. Well,
>>what is different is the 'issues'.
>>
>>There absolutely does not have to be anything negative or
>>antagonistic
>>in our approach to Apple regarding relicensing. Yes, we are
>>asking for a
>>favor. It is not wrong to nicely ask for the one we want
>>(first) instead
>>the one we'll settle for. (because we're afraid)
>>
>>An upper hand is not required. We are not trying to beat
>>anything out of
>>Apple. We have a place we would like to draw the line (say BSD) they
>>have a place they would like to draw the line. They may want
>>to leave it
>>alone, they may want BSD. Who knows without dialogue. Apple
>>may not have
>>given this one moments thought since late 1996. So they may
>>not have a firm opinion. More reasons for dialogue, not negotiation.
>>
>>I say 'tomato', you say 'tomato'... Lets just talk it over. :)
>>Okay the song doesn't quite come off in email. :)
>>
>>Jimmie Houchin
>>
>>
>>
>>Swan, Dean wrote:
>>
>>>I disagree on this one. I don't think Apple has any reason
>>>to want to spend ANY time negotiating this. If they do
>>>agree to anything, it will be out of consideration for
>>>the many contributors to Squeak.
>>>
>>>The current license situation is good for Apple, so
>>>they have no reason to bother with it.
>>>
>>>I'm inclined to agree with Andrew on this issue. Either
>>>come up with a license that Apple will almost certainly
>>>sign off on without negotiation or just live with the
>>>status quo.
>>>
>>>We do not have the upper hand here, so I think the more
>>>aggressive strategy proposed by Jimmie is not a good idea.
>>>
>>> -Dean
[snip]
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|