Please do not infer that two responses on the list mean that merely two 
people are objecting.

You are releasing software with its source, which means that there is no 
reason outside the law it shouldn't become as useful as possible. For 
example, were it good enough, it could become Squeak's basis for dealing 
with time, or part of it.

But as things stand, it will certainly not. Unless your code is SqueakL, 
or a Free license that's pliable enough to be likely-compatible with it 
(such as the MIT license), and specifically, it cannot limit 
redistribution of modified works (such as ports), it will not be bundled 
with Squeak. The reason is simple - while some of us are willing to live 
with arbitrary restrictions by an author some of the time, collectively, 
we cannot live under the union of such restrictions by all authors all 
of the time.

So from standard Squeak, such restrictions are forbidden.

Besides integration with base Squeak, there are quite a few of us who 
simply aren't interested in your software unless it is either 1. Open 
Source/Free Software or 2. Absolutely extraordinary, like Squeak itself.

Daniel


Alan Lovejoy wrote:
> stéphane:
> 
> 1. Hernan Wilkinson: No fair pointing me at Hernan's work when a Google
> search turns up nothing--especially since there's no way I can travel from
> California to Europe any time soon.  So tell me more.
> 
> 2. The Chronos License: In case no one's noticed, the current version of the
> license also forbids any commercial use.  Of course, I'll be removing that
> restriction once I've completed the documentation, implemented leap seconds,
> and completed a final beta period.  ETA of Release 1.0 is no later than the
> end of the year (hey, I have a full time job that doesn't involve Smalltalk
> coding.)
> 
> When Release 1.0 is published, I will be revising the license.  The revision
> will certainly remove the restriction against commercial use, but there's no
> reason I couldn't make other changes also at that time, should I become
> convinced that I should do so.  What I'm trying to say is that there's time
> for those of you who strongly object to the "no porting outside of
> Smalltalk" clause to convince me to change my mind.
> 
> However, at this point I've heard from exactly four people who possibly
> object. One of them recently wrote me for permission to port to a particular
> non-Smalltalk programming language--which I have granted in writing (the
> letter's in the mail as of today.) Whether that addresses his objection or
> not he hasn't said.  I'm counting Howard Stearns as one of the four,
> although all he said was  "You may have trademark issues in addition to the
> license controversy," which doesn't actually make his opinion on the matter
> explicit.  So perhaps there are only two people who object: Andreas Raab and
> Stéphane Ducasse.
> 
> Nevertheless, I feel the objections raise significant issues that deserve
> further discussion--and I don't mean just in the context of Chronos. The
> issues are much larger than that.  I don't want any such discussion to focus
> on Chronos per se--partly because it deserves to be a generic discussion,
> and partly because I'm really trying to avoid overly publicizing Chronos at
> this time (it's not done yet.) At this time, I'd prefer that Chronos only be
> seriously used by those for whom date/time computations are of high
> interest--and even then, only for purposes of evaluation. That's why my
> initial post said it was a "low key announcement."
> 
> So, given the subject of this thread, I'm going to close without saying
> anything further right now, but will post a new topic where the general
> licensing issues can be discussed (although not today--I have other business
> that must be attended to.)  Of course, others are welcome to start such a
> topic on their own, should they be so inclined.
> 
> --Alan
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> [mailto:squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of stéphane
> ducasse
> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 2:10 AM
> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> Subject: Re: Chronos
> 
> But alan
> 
> why do not you provide it as MIT and you can still port it to Java
> and sell it? I know that this is naive but
> when I see the hell of the licenses around and got systematically
> bitten by it.
> I think that in squeak we should have MIT and Squeak-L: look at
> Squeaksource, smallwiki, seaside, croquet, tweak.....
> the new network rewrite, compiler....will all be like that. Else I
> think that people should not really use your package.
> 
> By the way you will be interested by the forthcoming talk at esug
> about another time package developed by hernan wilkinson.
> It seems that their package will be open too, so may be it would be
> good to see how to produce the best of your packages.
> Or at least have a look.
> 
> Stef
> 
> On 20 juil. 05, at 4:05, Alan Lovejoy wrote:
> 
> 
>>
>>Brian Rice [water at tunes.org] napical:
>>
>>
>>>Eek! That means I can't port it to Slate (http://slate.tunes.org/).
>>>What's the point of that?
>>>
>>
>>
>>>On Jul 19, 2005, at 5:06 PM, Andreas Raab wrote:
>>>
>>
>>
>>>Looks interesting, but I sure hope you'll get your licensing terms
>>>in order. In particular this:
>>>
>>>    "4. You must agree not to port or translate Chronos into any
>>>programming language whose syntax, semantics and computational
>>>model are not substantially compliant to the ANSI Smalltalk
>>>Language Specification.  Porting Chronos to non-Smalltalk
>>>programming languages is strictly prohibited.  However, you are
>>>welcome to enter into negotiations with the copyright owner for
>>>permission to port Chronos to non-Smalltalk programming languages.
>>>In some cases, permission may be granted at no cost or other
>>>encumberance."
>>>
>>>Unless you are trying to find out whether anyone actually reads the
>>>license (in which case you've earned yourself a pat on the back for
>>>adding a really creative little clause to your license ;-) I think
>>>you should seriously rethink the attitude express by this clause.
>>>Surely you realize that niche languages like Smalltalk would be
>>>hurt more than other systems if everybody would pick up this
>>>attitude and have do-not-port-to-languages-i-don't-like clauses.
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>  - Andreas
>>>
>>
>>Calm down guys.
>>
>>Firstly, permit me to call your attention to the following two
>>sentences of
>>the license:
>>
>>"However, you are welcome to enter into negotiations with the
>>copyright
>>owner for  permission to port Chronos to non-Smalltalk programming
>>languages.  In some cases, permission may be granted at no cost or
>>other
>>encumberance."
>>
>>Of course, the license says nothing that specifies the basis on
>>which I
>>would decide whether or not to grant permission to port.  So let me
>>state it
>>here:  Although Andreas is partially correct that one of my
>>motivations is
>>to deny the functionality of Chronos to be ported to certain other
>>languages
>>because of my partisan dislike of the languages preferred by the
>>Curly-Braced Horde, that's not the primary motivation.  The primary
>>motivation is money.  I want to preserve my right to port Chronos to a
>>widely-used language (e.g., Java) and sell it for money.  That
>>motivation is
>>not operative in the case of languages such as Slate, Self or
>>Haskell, and
>>so I would grant permission for a port to such languages without
>>hesitation.
>>
>>However, because I want to be able to say that no one has
>>permission to port
>>who was not given such permission in writing, you must obtain written
>>permission.  If Brian is serious about porting Chronos to Slate, he
>>should
>>send me his contact details, and I will send him porting permission in
>>writing.
>>
>>--Alan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>