Hi Craig,

On 7/3/07, Craig Latta <craig at netjam.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Pavel--
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > what is the Contributors Agreement signature status of this people
> > (84)?
>
>      I suspect you're aware that I'm coordinating that information. :)
> As always, it's available at [1] (from which you seem to have copied
> your initials/name info, as indicated by the "nee Hultgren" annotation
> of mine :).
>
> > bootstrap    Pavel Krivanek
>
>      We have a signed letter on file for you (reflected in [1]). As for
> the rest of the 84 people you asked about, all of them have signed
> except for:
>
>      Andrew C. Greenberg (acg)
>      Alain Fischer (AFi)
>      Brent Pinkney (brp)
>      Ben Schroeder (bvs)
>      David J. Pennell (djp)
>      Dwight Hughes (dwh)
>      Henrik Gedenryd [deceased] (hg)
>      Helge Horch (hh)
>      ? (jm)
>      Mike Rutenberg (mdr)
>      ? (pmm)
>      Paul McDonough (pnm)
>      Richard A. Harmon (RAH)
>      John Sarkela (reThink)
>      Ranjan Bagchi (RJ)
>      Stefan Matthias Aust (sma)
>      Travis Griggs (TAG)
>      The Fourth Estate, Inc. (tfei)
>      ? (to)
>      Wayne Braun (wb)
>
>      As mentioned here previously (complete with ensuing mail storms :),
> the board has authorized current and future Squeak release teams to
> discard the code of non-signers at their discretion, as of 1 May 2007.
> Of course, as a practical matter, this isn't a big deal right now, since
> the current release team hasn't discarded anything for this reason yet,
> as far as I know.
>
>      The information at [1] includes the Squeak 3.9 objects I use to
> store this information. I generated all the textual lists at [1], as
> well as the list above, by evaluating expressions with those objects.
> Anyone could easily do the same, and I have mentioned all this here
> before on multiple occasions. I'm sorry to be repetitive, but it seems
> diligent to point this stuff out again. :)

My fault, I haven't expect that the object representation contains
something more than the lists :-)

> > that are the authors of methods that are contained in the smallest
> > image that is able to load the rest of Squeak.
>
>      I'm still puzzled as to why you feel the need to duplicate the
> Spoon work (and then use false superlatives to describe the result).
> What's going on here?

To be more accurate, the smallest image with the 3.10 code base that
can load the rest of Squeak 3.10.

> > We are talking about cca 2500 methods where about 650 methods have no
> > time stamp. I expect that it means that the authors of this methods
> > relinquished the authorship so this method are automatically under the
> > new Squeak license.
>
>      I don't think there's any basis to assume that. Under the Berne
> convention, an author need not register a copyright in the countries
> that adhere to the convention. This is one reason why we're collecting
> explicit agreements. I assure you, if we didn't feel we ought to go
> through this, we wouldn't. :)

ok

> > I think that the set of methods that we will have to rewrite will be
> > very low.
>
>      Yes, and much lower still with Spoon.

right

> > If we will confirm license change for methods by this authors, we will
> > have the first image, that can be able to:
> > - load reset of non-free kernel methods
> > - load fonts, display text and paragraph support
> > - load MinimalMorphic system
> > - load rest of Squeak code
> > This steps can be done explicitly by user (he for example runs a
> > script that will download and install the code from internet) so the
> > basic kernel Squeak image will be freely redistributable. Currently
> > the basic kernel includes only Linux platform dependent code.
> > If we will have this image free, we can slowly add the next
> > license-clean code to the kernel.
>
>      This is roughly the plan for Naiad, Spoon's module system.
>
>      I'm mostly a technocrat: I want to put my effort into the
> technology I think is most effective. Do you have a similar mindset? Is
> there something about Spoon that you think is lacking? Are we dealing
> with technical issues, or political ones, or something else? It's not
> clear to me why, apparently, we're working at cross purposes.

If we would have free Spoon now, nothing important would change
because Spoon is too different from current systems - from this point
of view it's similar to the current free Squeak 1.1. Spoon is a fork
with own VM, module system, major changes in the system architecture.
I don't think that there are some political issues. I simply want/need
modular free image that can run in context of current Squeak
applications and tools and I want it as soon as possible.

Can you tell me where do you see problematic aspects of my work?

-- Pavel

>      thanks!
>
> -C
>
> [1] http://netjam.org/squeak/contributors
>
> --
> Craig Latta
> improvisational musical informaticist
> www.netjam.org
> Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]
>
>
>