Hi Folks,

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 23 September 2014 00:04, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> On 22 September 2014 20:10, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Nicolas Cellier
> >>> <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 2014-09-22 17:51 GMT+02:00 David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com>:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We need positive confirmation that the code derived from that public
> >>>>> repository was licensed MIT, or a statement from the original author
> that
> >>>>> is now being released under MIT. I'm sure that the original author
> will be
> >>>>> happy to do that, but we do need a clear statement of license before
> we
> >>>>> can allow the code to be added to trunk.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dave
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry  for the late reply.
> >>>> I mistakenly assumed the license problem was solved, but after
> verification,
> >>>> there is no mention of a license on the blog nor on the cincom public
> store
> >>>> repository.
> >>>> I have sent private e-mail to Travis 2 days ago, but haven't received
> an
> >>>> answer yet.
> >>>> I don't know him personnally, so I would welcome any one having a more
> >>>> direct channel to contact him.
> >>>> Without a clear answer we'll have to retract these commits.
> >>>>
> >>>> Unless you prefer a preventive retractation right now?
> >>>
> >>> Travis hasn't been involved with Smalltalk for over 2 years now
> >>>
> >>>   http://objology.blogspot.com/2012/05/stepping-out-of-balloon.html
> >>>
> >>> so its very possible you'll get no reply.
> >>>
> >>> Note that Cincom reprinted his blog post under their own domain,
> >>> including the part that encourages to "port it to your own flavor of
> >>> Smalltalk".
> >>>
> >>>    http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/main/2010/12/tag-sortfunctions/
> >>>
> >>> If they would object to this being ported, why would they reprint it
> >>> and not "clarify" that point?
> >>>
> >>> To me, it seems clear that this was meant for adoption by the
> >>> Smalltalk community at large.  It would be a shame to subvert that by
> >>> some (mis)perceived legal technicality.  We are not lawyers, but in
> >>> case we get no reply, if we're that concerned about a lawsuit (waged
> >>> by Cincom?), the SFC does have a legal resource whom we could ask to
> >>> evaluate it.
> >>
> >> "Port" means "translate into your Smalltalk". It does not have
> >> anything at all to do with licences. I didn't see Travis saying "this
> >> is public domain",
> >
> > He didn't?  Then what does this mean?
>
> If he doesn't say "in the public domain" then I fail to see how we can
> infer that the original code is in the public domain.
>
> >   "And you can lobby Cincom to include it in VisualWorks. Or port it
> > to your own flavor of Smalltalk."
> >
> > Followed by:
> >
> >   "I did my best to write it in such a way that it would work in
> > Squeak or Gemstone, or whatever."
> >
> > Geez its even better than MIT because he explicitly mentioned Squeak
> > and Gemstone, followed by "whatever".
> >
> > Taken as a whole, the meaning is clear.  You're hung up because it
> > wasn't drafted by a lawyer, approved by parliament, and stamped by the
> > queen..?
>
> I'd like clarity as to the licence.
>
> >> I didn't see a licence declaration, so... what?
> >> Hopefully Travis will come back and say "hey, you know, I'm a
> >> signed-up contributor to Squeak, why are you even asking?" and then we
> >> can all be happy.
> >>
> >> Until then, we _do not know_. 'It was ported from a "public
> >> repository" into trunk.  Everything posted to trunk is MIT.' is not an
> >> argument.
> >
> > I was simply trying to double-answer your ambiguous question, which
> > didn't specify whether you were asking about the license of the
> > original work or the derivative work.  The derivative work is
> > MIT-licensed by virtue of it being part of Squeak.
>
> You're saying that Nicolas' implementation is the derivative work,
> right? That's fine.
>
> >> And the second statement's not even true. Us saying "you
> >> submitted it, therefore it's MIT" is bogus.
> >
> > Log into source.squeak.org and click on "The Trunk" on the left side.
> > What do you see under "License?"
>
> That's not at all the same thing. If you have an MIT licensed
> codebase, and copy a bunch of code in there from a GPL licensed
> codebase, guess what? Your codebase isn't MIT licensed anymore. (This
> is not a theoretical concern. It happens to real projects.)
>
> >> The submitter needs to
> >> have signed the contributor agreement, _and have the right_ to sign
> >> such an agreement. Your work contract might not permit you to do such
> >> a thing.
> >>
> >> And I'm not suggesting ripping anything out. Let's wait for Travis to
> >> respond. Hopefully someone has a more direct line to him, given that
> >> Nicolas has waited two days already.
> >
> > Respond with what?  Something like, "Yes, I really did mean what I
> > wrote in black and white that 'You can port it to your own flavor of
> > Smalltalk.'"  Or do we need him to officially "stamp it" with some
> > kind of "MIT" stamp?
>
> "Hi, that code I wrote that Nicolas ported? Public domain." That would
> suit me just fine.
>
> >  And, if he's too busy to do your paperwork then
> > throw it out?
>
> Yes, to put it bluntly. I don't understand why this upsets you so
> much, Chris. Yes, it's annoying boring paperwork nonsense that keeps
> lawyers employed. It still needs doing.
>
> >> But this is a very real problem.
> >
> > No it isn't.  I think you're making a problem out of nothing.  What do
> > you think could happen?  A lawsuit?
>
> I'd like to be able to say, with reasonable certainty, that all the
> code in Trunk landed there because someone who agreed to licence their
> code as MIT, did so.
>
> Since Travis has actually signed the contributor agreement
> (http://netjam.org/squeak/contributors/contributors under the initials
> TAG), checking with him is (a) just plain polite and (b) should not be
> a problem. (And I'd like to see his positive response in this case
> because his signing the agreement doesn't mean that all Smalltalk code
> he ever wrote that we can find is now suddenly MIT licensed.)
>

I'm doing just this.  I write to Travis last night, have received a reply,
sent another message to clarify and expect another message from him soon.
-- 
best,
Eliot
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20140923/980e4107/attachment.htm