Proposal for a Squeak migration meeting
Colin Putney
cputney at wiresong.ca
Fri Jun 30 15:19:30 UTC 2006
On Jun 30, 2006, at 5:47 AM, Lex Spoon wrote:
> stéphane ducasse <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> writes:
>> The main problem is who would do that? Since we are not even able to
>> harvest fixes.
>> Now what we can do is to perform an audit of the assets we have and
>> their status:
>>
>> - NewCompiler (nearly there and could be APSL/MIT/Squeak-L)
>> - Tweak ?
>> - OmniBrowser
>> - MC
>> - YAXO
>>
>> I have the impression that we cannot restart from scratch without a
>> clear analysis of the current
>> status.
>
>
> There is a lot of existing Squeak content. There are 200 packages in
> the 3.7 stable package universe. It takes hours just to *read* this
> list. Imagine how long it would take to reproduce it all.
Whoa. So far this is the first suggestion I've seen that we should
worry about the licensing of anything other than the core image. The
goal here is to be able to say that "Squeak is Open Source (tm)" and
be able to have it included in OS distributions, or pitch it to
customers on that basis. That code doesn't require that every bit of
code in the Squeak universe comply. The packages on SM can be
licensed however the authors choose, and it's up to them to manage
the consequences of their choices.
I think Steph brought up those packages because they are or have been
included in the core Squeak distribution at one time or another.
They're also big chunks of code with few contributors and should thus
be fairly easy to get relicensed.
Colin
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|