2009/2/9 Ken Causey <ken at kencausey.com>:
> On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 15:45 +0200, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>> How about this one:
>>
>>  asStringWithCr
>>         "Convert to a string with returns between items.  Elements are
>> usually strings.
>>          Useful for labels for PopUpMenus."
>>         ^ String streamContents: [:str |
>>             self do: [:each | str nextPutAll: each asString ]
>> separatedBy: [ str cr ]
>>         ]
>>
>> Btw, i was surprised to see in String>>printOn: something else than
>> 'stream nextPutAll: self' , otherwise we could simply put
>> 'each printOn: str' in the method above.
>
> Igor,
>
> I'm going to pick on you so as to head off any possible diversion down
> this path, please don't take it personally.
>
> You've missed the point.  I care nothing about this particular method
> and don't need assistance rewriting it.  If you are interested in
> rewriting methods please join us in this final phase of the licensing
> audit.  I'm simply using this as a concrete example to indicate the
> issue.
>
i see, sorry for hurry with posting 2 cents :)

> My point is that we need a clear official policy on both the criteria by
> which we can simply accept the current version of a method despite one
> or more missing licensing agreements relevant to it and the procedure we
> should follow when a rewrite is deemed necessary.
>
> The goal of this exercise is not to please you and me.  This is all
> about doing due diligence to satisfy everyone else that Squeak 4.0 is
> truly a license clean release that anyone can feel safe using and for
> which there is no significant legal risk.
>

I remember we had such discussions before , a most 'secure' way was to
have 2 roles - one is implementor, another is overseer. An overseer
looks at problematic method and describing what method should do to
'implementor'. Then implementor makes own implementation without
looking at current implementation at all.
Despite how good it sounds, IMO, it is not really works in practice.
First, since given method already exists in image and its source
available for reading at any time, how any implementor can prove that
he never saw original implementation and claim that new implementation
is based on his own mental effort?
Second, describing a method could also be seen as an illegal act,
because your description is based on knowledge of the method sources.
And knowledge is intellectual property :)

As to me, this is a dead end. You may rewrite the method yourself, you
may say someone else to rewrite method - its merely same thing,
because squeak sources is open to anyone.

So, how hard we try, there will be always a way to blame us in
violating copyrights, because they are flawed.
>From this point, i think its equally safe (equally unsafe) to rewrite
the method or leave it be (if it was already overridden by author who
signed MIT agreement). And, of course, i think there is no difference
whether you looked at 'tainted' method or not - because if they want
to sue you, they will, and any precautions simply will not help.

> Ken
>


-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.