[squeak-dev] How to rewrite a license restricted method?

Igor Stasenko siguctua at gmail.com
Mon Feb 9 23:06:15 UTC 2009


2009/2/10 David Mitchell <david.mitchell at gmail.com>:
>> 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.
>
> Sure, but that is an argument for doing nothing, and we've already
> decided to do the Squeak 4.0 rewrite effort.
>
> So, getting back to the original question, here is a proposal for 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.
>
> 1. Don't accept any code missing license agreements no matter how trivial.
> 2. Write a comment describing the purpose of the method. Don't include
> implementation details.
> 3. Delete the source.
> 4. Remove any prior versions by contributors that haven't signed the agreement.
> 5. If there is a prior version by someone who has signed the
> agreement, bring it forward.
> 6. Test (not necessarily a formal unit test, but it would be nice).
> 7. If the test passes, release.
> 8. If the test failed, post a request to fix the bug. Only accept
> submissions from people who are willing to certify that they haven't
> looked at a prior implementation. Repeat from step 6.
>

the only people who haven't looked at any prior implementation 100%
guaranteed, is those who never used squeak in their life. But once
they run squeak image, there is 99.9% chance that you eventually could
see a source of a random 'license unclean' method. Also, imagine a
developer who knows nothing about squeak to write new implementation..

That's why i think we should not be focused on process of rewrite, we
should simply need to rewrite the unclean methods, regardless of what
you seen or where you been. Because this is completely irrelevant and
can't be proven in any way. Otherwise, as to me there precautions
looks ridiculous to an outsider, as a phrase: i never seen your deep
blue eyes.

> Then your license defense might center around:
> a. how well you've followed the above process
> b. whether the submitters claim to cleanliness is authentic
>
>


-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list