gmane.comp.lang.smalltalk.squeak.general

Re: The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.

Very good news!

Thank you all for the hard work.

Cheers,

-- Diego

> Hi all--
> 
> 	Thanks to long-running efforts by folks at Viewpoints Research 
> Institute, Apple Computer and elsewhere, Apple has given Viewpoints 
> permission to make a release of the original public Squeak system using 
> the Apple Public Source License[1].
> 
> 	Squeak 1.1, with an APSL2 license, is available here:
> 
> 	http://squeakland.org/installers/Squeak1.1-APSL.zip
> 
> 	The Squeak Foundation board would like to thank the above groups for 
> making this happen, and everyone else for being so patient!
> 
> 	And now we live in interesting times. This only applies to the original 
> release of Squeak (version 1.1 of 23 September 1996); we now have a 
> choice between APSL2 and the original Squeak License[2] for that 
> release. We need to decide what to do about subsequent code, and code 
> written by third parties. We might choose to rewrite some things so as 
> to create a better licensing situation. We probably want to have a 
> policy whereby contributors agree to grant a particular license to their 
> work explicitly before we can accept it.

(Continue reading)

headers

Darius Clarke | 24 May 21:02

Re: The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.

My small suggestions is to switch/rewrite as much as we can to the new license.
The reasoning is, to better server the other communities whom we trying to invite to our world.

> Hi all--
>
>       Thanks to long-running efforts by folks at Viewpoints Research
> Institute, Apple Computer and elsewhere, Apple has given Viewpoints
> permission to make a release of the original public Squeak system using
> the Apple Public Source License[1].
>
>       Squeak 1.1, with an APSL2 license, is available here:
>
>       http://squeakland.org/installers/Squeak1.1-APSL.zip
>
>       The Squeak Foundation board would like to thank the above groups for
> making this happen, and everyone else for being so patient!
>
>       And now we live in interesting times. This only applies to the original
> release of Squeak (version 1.1 of 23 September 1996); we now have a
> choice between APSL2 and the original Squeak License[2] for that
> release. We need to decide what to do about subsequent code, and code
> written by third parties. We might choose to rewrite some things so as
> to create a better licensing situation. We probably want to have a
> policy whereby contributors agree to grant a particular license to their
> work explicitly before we can accept it.
>
>       How shall we proceed with future releases of Squeak? Let's discuss it.
>
>
>       thanks again,
>       your Squeak Foundation board
>
> [1] http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/2.0.txt
> [2] http://www.squeak.org/SqueakLicense
>
--
==========================================
Diego Gomez Deck
------------------------------------------
http://www.consultar.com/DiegoGomezDeck/
http://diegogomezdeck.blogspot.com/
http://smalltalk.consultar.com/
==========================================

headers

Craig Latta | 24 May 20:59

re: The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.


	Oh, note that APSL2 is "OSI-approved" and "OSD-compliant"[1, 2]. One 
problem solved by using APSL2 (or a sublicense of it) is that we can say 
that Squeak is "open source" and no one will debate it. Tedious as this 
is, it's been a burden to us in the past, in my opinion.

-C

[1] http://opensource.org
[2] http://opensource.org/licenses/index.php

--

-- 
Craig Latta
improvisational musical informaticist
www.netjam.org
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]

headers

Juan Vuletich | 24 May 21:54

Re: The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.

Great! Now these are great news!

Cheers,
Juan Vuletich

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Craig Latta" <craig <at> netjam.org>
To: <squeak-dev <at> lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 3:59 PM
Subject: re: The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.

> 
> Oh, note that APSL2 is "OSI-approved" and "OSD-compliant"[1, 2]. One 
> problem solved by using APSL2 (or a sublicense of it) is that we can say 
> that Squeak is "open source" and no one will debate it. Tedious as this 
> is, it's been a burden to us in the past, in my opinion.
> 
> 
> -C
> 
> [1] http://opensource.org
> [2] http://opensource.org/licenses/index.php
> 
> -- 
> Craig Latta
> improvisational musical informaticist
> www.netjam.org
> Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.7.0/346 - Release Date: 5/23/2006
> 
>

headers

Patrick Mauritz | 25 May 19:04

Re: The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.

Craig Latta wrote:
>     Oh, note that APSL2 is "OSI-approved" and "OSD-compliant"[1, 2]. One 
> problem solved by using APSL2 (or a sublicense of it) is that we can say 
> that Squeak is "open source" and no one will debate it. Tedious as this 
wishful thinking - the debate about being open source or not comes up 
around open solaris (cddl, OSI approved) all the time.

for some people, only some licenses are "really, really, really open 
source the way $deity intended it to be[tm]" (gpl *cough*)

at least, reasonable people will be happy enough with that change, I 
guess. so, still good news )

patrick mauritz

headers

Jimmie Houchin | 25 May 19:34

Re: The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.

Patrick Mauritz wrote:
> Craig Latta wrote:
>>     Oh, note that APSL2 is "OSI-approved" and "OSD-compliant"[1, 2].
>> One problem solved by using APSL2 (or a sublicense of it) is that we
>> can say that Squeak is "open source" and no one will debate it.
>> Tedious as this 
> wishful thinking - the debate about being open source or not comes up
> around open solaris (cddl, OSI approved) all the time.

While this is true and the APSL is less free than I would prefer (as is
the gpl) or at least too long. It is at least an understood license and
people have an understanding where they stand with regard to it. With
the SqueakL too many people didn't even care to investigate it because
they would have to read it, analyze it and make a determination on their
position on a non-standard license.

So this is a very big win. Even if some people aren't for the APSL, they
understand its rights.

> for some people, only some licenses are "really, really, really open
> source the way $deity intended it to be[tm]" (gpl *cough*)

Ha ha. Yeah right. :)

> at least, reasonable people will be happy enough with that change, I
> guess. so, still good news )

Very much so.

And the interesting thing is that it possibly points us to a heretofore
unconsidered image for stripping and building.

There has been a fair amount of discussion of stripping images and some
on which image to operate on. This could be interesting. Says one who
isn't qualified to do. :(

Starting from a 1.6mb image as opposed to a 12mb image on up and then
harvest what we can from from the big images and package them.

Oh well, talk is easy. :)

Jimmie

headers

Yoshiki Ohshima | 24 May 21:05

Re: The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.

> 	Thanks to long-running efforts by folks at Viewpoints Research 
> Institute, Apple Computer and elsewhere, Apple has given Viewpoints 
> permission to make a release of the original public Squeak system using 
> the Apple Public Source License[1].
> 
> 	Squeak 1.1, with an APSL2 license, is available here:
> 
> 	http://squeakland.org/installers/Squeak1.1-APSL.zip
> 
> 	The Squeak Foundation board would like to thank the above groups for 
> making this happen, and everyone else for being so patient!

  Yay!

> 	And now we live in interesting times. This only applies to the original 
> release of Squeak (version 1.1 of 23 September 1996); we now have a 
> choice between APSL2 and the original Squeak License[2] for that 
> release. We need to decide what to do about subsequent code, and code 
> written by third parties. We might choose to rewrite some things so as 
> to create a better licensing situation. We probably want to have a 
> policy whereby contributors agree to grant a particular license to their 
> work explicitly before we can accept it.
> 
> 	How shall we proceed with future releases of Squeak? Let's discuss it.

  Yes, let's.  But, I'm too humble to start one by myself^^;

-- Yoshiki

headers

Ken Causey | 24 May 21:39

Re: The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.

On Wed, 2006-05-24 at 12:05 -0700, Yoshiki Ohshima wrote:
>   Yay!

I'll second that.

> On Wed also, Craig Latta wrote:
> > 	How shall we proceed with future releases of Squeak? Let's discuss it.
> 
>   Yes, let's.  But, I'm too humble to start one by myself^^;

While I understand you mean that to be humorous, I would like to point
out that since you have been elected as a SqueakFoundation Board member
you no longer have any right to claim to be too humble on such issues
within this community.  Having elected you we expect and hope that you
will actively take lead in this sort of thing.  I don't mean to chide
you necessarily, but I felt it was a good opportunity to remind you and
other board members that we not only welcome leadership but expect it.

> 
> -- Yoshiki

Thanks,

Ken

headers

Yoshiki Ohshima | 25 May 01:14

Re: The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.

  Ken,

 Causey wrote:
> 
> > > 	How shall we proceed with future releases of Squeak? Let's discuss it.
> > 
> >   Yes, let's.  But, I'm too humble to start one by myself^^;
> 
> While I understand you mean that to be humorous, I would like to point
> out that since you have been elected as a SqueakFoundation Board member
> you no longer have any right to claim to be too humble on such issues
> within this community.  Having elected you we expect and hope that you
> will actively take lead in this sort of thing.  I don't mean to chide
> you necessarily, but I felt it was a good opportunity to remind you and
> other board members that we not only welcome leadership but expect
> it.

  As the discussion already got started, saying this would be
pointless... but I'll try to do my part.  Thanks!

-- Yoshiki

headers

Ken Causey | 25 May 01:39

Re: The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.

On Wed, 2006-05-24 at 16:14 -0700, Yoshiki Ohshima wrote:
>   As the discussion already got started, saying this would be
> pointless... but I'll try to do my part.  Thanks!
> 
> -- Yoshiki

Excellent!  Thank you,

Ken

headers

stéphane ducasse | 26 May 22:32

Re: The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.

>
> While I understand you mean that to be humorous, I would like to point
> out that since you have been elected as a SqueakFoundation Board  
> member
> you no longer have any right to claim to be too humble on such issues
> within this community.  Having elected you we expect and hope that you
> will actively take lead in this sort of thing.  I don't mean to chide
> you necessarily, but I felt it was a good opportunity to remind you  
> and
> other board members that we not only welcome leadership but expect it.

Yes Yoshiki.
:)
>
>>
>> -- Yoshiki
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ken
>

headers

Daniel Vainsencher | 24 May 21:46

Re: The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.

Thanks and congrats to everyone that has worked on this!

 I think the natural next steps are:
1. Finding for each method in recent Squeak, the names of all persons 
who've modified them. The history images should make this feasible.
2. Gathering from all contributors a statement saying "all the code I 
ever published into Squeak I relicense APSL 2.0", getting legal advice 
on how to do this right (for example, helping people not declare 
"work-for-hire").
3. Making it clear what code in the image remains tainted, to encourage 
rewrites.

But a quick free release would be very nice. Say, Craig, how much code 
is there in Spoon that is not covered by this new license and not 
copyright Craig Latta?

Daniel

Craig Latta wrote:
>
> Hi all--
>
>     Thanks to long-running efforts by folks at Viewpoints Research 
> Institute, Apple Computer and elsewhere, Apple has given Viewpoints 
> permission to make a release of the original public Squeak system 
> using the Apple Public Source License[1].
>
>     Squeak 1.1, with an APSL2 license, is available here:
>
>     http://squeakland.org/installers/Squeak1.1-APSL.zip
>
>     The Squeak Foundation board would like to thank the above groups 
> for making this happen, and everyone else for being so patient!
>
>     And now we live in interesting times. This only applies to the 
> original release of Squeak (version 1.1 of 23 September 1996); we now 
> have a choice between APSL2 and the original Squeak License[2] for 
> that release. We need to decide what to do about subsequent code, and 
> code written by third parties. We might choose to rewrite some things 
> so as to create a better licensing situation. We probably want to have 
> a policy whereby contributors agree to grant a particular license to 
> their work explicitly before we can accept it.
>
>     How shall we proceed with future releases of Squeak? Let's discuss 
> it.
>
>
>     thanks again,
>     your Squeak Foundation board
>
> [1] http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/2.0.txt
> [2] http://www.squeak.org/SqueakLicense
>

headers

Jimmie Houchin | 24 May 22:17

Re: The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.

Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> Thanks and congrats to everyone that has worked on this!
> 
> I think the natural next steps are:
> 1. Finding for each method in recent Squeak, the names of all persons 
> who've modified them. The history images should make this feasible.
> 2. Gathering from all contributors a statement saying "all the code I 
> ever published into Squeak I relicense APSL 2.0", getting legal advice 
> on how to do this right (for example, helping people not declare 
> "work-for-hire").
> 3. Making it clear what code in the image remains tainted, to encourage 
> rewrites.
> 
> But a quick free release would be very nice. Say, Craig, how much code 
> is there in Spoon that is not covered by this new license and not 
> copyright Craig Latta?
[snip Craig's original message]

I think it would be nice for any code relicensed or published beyond 
this release be license under either the new BSD or the MIT license. 
That way as code is rewritten and replaced the overall licensing of 
Squeak improves. I think the only code that should be APSL is the code 
Apple contributes. Maybe doing a simple BSD/MIT based Squeak Public 
License or some such.

That way if we replace the IO code with Flow, etc. the licensing 
improves. We replace MVC with Tweak. We replace Collections with the 
Traits rewrite. etc...  Then we are left with a small core of Apple APSL 
code and then other community member contributions with nicer, smaller, 
cleaner licenses.

Regardless, under the APSL minimally puts Squeak into an understandable 
situation by the larger programming, open source community.

Thanks to all who worked towards this. This could definitely provide a 
nice foundation for the future.

Is this where the disassembly of the monolithic image begins?
Shrink this image. Build back up with SM code, or some such.

My 2cents.

Jimmie

headers

Lord ZealoN | 24 May 22:16

Re: The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.

I'm going to try it in my PocketPC. Good news :)

2006/5/24, Jimmie Houchin <j.squeak <at> cyberhaus.us>:
> Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> > Thanks and congrats to everyone that has worked on this!
> >
> > I think the natural next steps are:
> > 1. Finding for each method in recent Squeak, the names of all persons
> > who've modified them. The history images should make this feasible.
> > 2. Gathering from all contributors a statement saying "all the code I
> > ever published into Squeak I relicense APSL 2.0", getting legal advice
> > on how to do this right (for example, helping people not declare
> > "work-for-hire").
> > 3. Making it clear what code in the image remains tainted, to encourage
> > rewrites.
> >
> > But a quick free release would be very nice. Say, Craig, how much code
> > is there in Spoon that is not covered by this new license and not
> > copyright Craig Latta?
> [snip Craig's original message]
>
> I think it would be nice for any code relicensed or published beyond
> this release be license under either the new BSD or the MIT license.
> That way as code is rewritten and replaced the overall licensing of
> Squeak improves. I think the only code that should be APSL is the code
> Apple contributes. Maybe doing a simple BSD/MIT based Squeak Public
> License or some such.
>
> That way if we replace the IO code with Flow, etc. the licensing
> improves. We replace MVC with Tweak. We replace Collections with the
> Traits rewrite. etc...  Then we are left with a small core of Apple APSL
> code and then other community member contributions with nicer, smaller,
> cleaner licenses.
>
> Regardless, under the APSL minimally puts Squeak into an understandable
> situation by the larger programming, open source community.
>
> Thanks to all who worked towards this. This could definitely provide a
> nice foundation for the future.
>
> Is this where the disassembly of the monolithic image begins?
> Shrink this image. Build back up with SM code, or some such.
>
> My 2cents.
>
> Jimmie
>
>
>

--

-- 

::Mi blog::
http://blog.lordzealon.com

headers

Daniel Vainsencher | 24 May 22:36

Re: The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.

I agree with Jimmie, consider my proposal amended to read MIT (or 
equivalent) license instead of "APSL 2.0". This gives us more 
flexibility in the future.

This might seem strange, whats wrong with the APSL? well, I started 
looking, and Debian has in the past removed APSL 2.0 packages from 
Debian, so they're not satisfied (actually, they seem divided on it). 
And people linking Squeak into various libraries might want to note that 
APSL 2.0 is not GPL compatible. So yes, there is a reason not to place 
any new code under the APSL, and to prefer MIT or such licenses.

That said, I believe the APSL does allow us wide distribution with open 
source and free software venues, and is a very easy to live with license 
for almost all purposes, and I therefore allow myself to anticipate that 
this is the last Squeak licensing discussion I will be engaging in (Yay!).

Daniel

Jimmie Houchin wrote:
> Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
>> Thanks and congrats to everyone that has worked on this!
>>
>> I think the natural next steps are:
>> 1. Finding for each method in recent Squeak, the names of all persons 
>> who've modified them. The history images should make this feasible.
>> 2. Gathering from all contributors a statement saying "all the code I 
>> ever published into Squeak I relicense APSL 2.0", getting legal 
>> advice on how to do this right (for example, helping people not 
>> declare "work-for-hire").
>> 3. Making it clear what code in the image remains tainted, to 
>> encourage rewrites.
>>
>> But a quick free release would be very nice. Say, Craig, how much 
>> code is there in Spoon that is not covered by this new license and 
>> not copyright Craig Latta?
> [snip Craig's original message]
>
> I think it would be nice for any code relicensed or published beyond 
> this release be license under either the new BSD or the MIT license. 
> That way as code is rewritten and replaced the overall licensing of 
> Squeak improves. I think the only code that should be APSL is the code 
> Apple contributes. Maybe doing a simple BSD/MIT based Squeak Public 
> License or some such.
>
> That way if we replace the IO code with Flow, etc. the licensing 
> improves. We replace MVC with Tweak. We replace Collections with the 
> Traits rewrite. etc...  Then we are left with a small core of Apple 
> APSL code and then other community member contributions with nicer, 
> smaller, cleaner licenses.
>
> Regardless, under the APSL minimally puts Squeak into an 
> understandable situation by the larger programming, open source 
> community.
>
> Thanks to all who worked towards this. This could definitely provide a 
> nice foundation for the future.
>
> Is this where the disassembly of the monolithic image begins?
> Shrink this image. Build back up with SM code, or some such.
>
> My 2cents.
>
> Jimmie
>
>

headers

Giovanni Corriga | 25 May 00:04

Re: The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.

Il giorno mer, 24/05/2006 alle 15.17 -0500, Jimmie Houchin ha scritto:

> I think it would be nice for any code relicensed or published beyond 
> this release be license under either the new BSD or the MIT license. 
> That way as code is rewritten and replaced the overall licensing of 
> Squeak improves. I think the only code that should be APSL is the code 
> Apple contributes. Maybe doing a simple BSD/MIT based Squeak Public 
> License or some such.

I agree with Jimmie, if only because the APSL is a couple of pages of
legalese, while the BSD/MIT license is just ten lines long.

	Giovanni

headers

Craig Latta | 25 May 07:08

re: The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.


Hi Jimmie--

 > I think it would be nice for any code relicensed or published beyond
 > this release be license under either the new BSD or the MIT license.
 > That way as code is rewritten and replaced the overall licensing of
 > Squeak improves. I think the only code that should be APSL is the code
 > Apple contributes. Maybe doing a simple BSD/MIT based Squeak Public
 > License or some such.

	I think this is a good idea. I did a similar thing for previous Spoon 
releases. I think as long as our trivial derived-from-BSD-or-MIT Squeak 
license is compatible with the license each copyright holder wants to 
use, then we're good. (And hopefully the total number of licenses 
involved is very small, say two. :)

 > Is this where the disassembly of the monolithic image begins? Shrink
 > this image. Build back up with SM code, or some such.

	Yeah!

-C

--

-- 
Craig Latta
improvisational musical informaticist
www.netjam.org
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]

headers

tim Rowledge | 24 May 23:50

Re: The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.

On 24-May-06, at 12:46 PM, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:

> Thanks and congrats to everyone that has worked on this!
>
> I think the natural next steps are:
> 1. Finding for each method in recent Squeak, the names of all  
> persons who've modified them. The history images should make this  
> feasible.
> 2. Gathering from all contributors a statement saying "all the code  
> I ever published into Squeak I relicense APSL 2.0",

If someone could build a suitable page on a swiki (for example) for  
this I would be very happy to declare everything I've previously  
contributed as available under any relevant license or indeed, non- 
license.

tim
--
tim Rowledge; tim <at> rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
Strange OpCodes: SG: Show Garbage

headers

Bert Freudenberg | 25 May 00:05

Re: The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.

Am 24.05.2006 um 23:50 schrieb tim Rowledge:

>
> On 24-May-06, at 12:46 PM, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
>
>> Thanks and congrats to everyone that has worked on this!
>>
>> I think the natural next steps are:
>> 1. Finding for each method in recent Squeak, the names of all  
>> persons who've modified them. The history images should make this  
>> feasible.
>> 2. Gathering from all contributors a statement saying "all the  
>> code I ever published into Squeak I relicense APSL 2.0",
>
> If someone could build a suitable page on a swiki (for example) for  
> this I would be very happy to declare everything I've previously  
> contributed as available under any relevant license or indeed, non- 
> license.

IIRC other organizations (I think it was the FSF) actually require a  
signed paper form for this. A wiki page isn't really legally binding,  
is it?

Nonetheless it would be a good indicator of what percentage of new  
code we could actual recover this way.

- Bert -

headers

tim Rowledge | 25 May 00:31

Re: The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.


On 24-May-06, at 3:05 PM, Bert Freudenberg wrote:

>
> IIRC other organizations (I think it was the FSF) actually require  
> a signed paper form for this. A wiki page isn't really legally  
> binding, is it?
No idea, but it surely must be as binding as whatever one has already  
done by producing the file - why should changing something implicit  
in electronic form need explicit paper?
I should stop thinking about licensing before my tail starts steaming.

tim
--
tim Rowledge; tim <at> rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
Useful Latin Phrases:- Illiud Latine dici non potest = You can't say  
that in Latin.

headers

Bert Freudenberg | 25 May 00:54

Re: The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.

Am 25.05.2006 um 00:31 schrieb tim Rowledge:

> On 24-May-06, at 3:05 PM, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>
>> IIRC other organizations (I think it was the FSF) actually require  
>> a signed paper form for this. A wiki page isn't really legally  
>> binding, is it?
> No idea, but it surely must be as binding as whatever one has  
> already done by producing the file - why should changing something  
> implicit in electronic form need explicit paper?

Well, there is real paper, likely signed by Important People, in some  
drawer somewhere with the original, and the new license grant. And I  
guess it goes from there - the term "paper trail" must come from  
something, right?

> I should stop thinking about licensing before my tail starts steaming.

Good idea. Though I have a hunch we're not going to get around the  
Annual License Discussion this year, it's spring-time on squeak-dev,  
after all 

- Bert -

headers

Cees De Groot | 25 May 12:41

Re: The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.

On 5/25/06, Bert Freudenberg <bert <at> impara.de> wrote:
> Well, there is real paper, likely signed by Important People, in some
> drawer somewhere with the original, and the new license grant.

Indeed. Still, I'll happily base any decisions on how to document
relicensing decisions on the advice we'll hopefully get from our legal
friends, like Dan Ravicher. Bringing the SFLC in is probably step #1.

headers

stéphane ducasse | 26 May 22:49

Re: The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.

+1
Then we can put in place the right infrastucture.

> On 5/25/06, Bert Freudenberg <bert <at> impara.de> wrote:
>> Well, there is real paper, likely signed by Important People, in some
>> drawer somewhere with the original, and the new license grant.
>
> Indeed. Still, I'll happily base any decisions on how to document
> relicensing decisions on the advice we'll hopefully get from our legal
> friends, like Dan Ravicher. Bringing the SFLC in is probably step #1.

headers

Diego Gomez Deck | 25 May 11:21

Re: The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.

> If someone could build a suitable page on a swiki (for example) for  
> this I would be very happy to declare everything I've previously  
> contributed as available under any relevant license or indeed, non- 
> license.

We also need to include APSL2 license in SqueakMap (and SqueakSource?).

I'll also publish all my contributions in any license we agreed.  To
start I can re-license everything as "MIT/APSL2/SqueakL".

Cheers,

-- Diego

headers

Daniel Vainsencher | 25 May 20:14

Re: The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.

Hi everyone,

As Andreas demonstrated, it is not obvious that you can relicense code 
you've written just because you wish to. If you were employed at the 
time of writing the code, it may (or may not) be copyright your 
employer, and in some countries this is the case by default.

Sounds to me like gathering all the employment dates of everyone on the 
wiki might be a bit too public, what do people think? I was just 
starting to make a page to gather this information when the thought 
occurred to me...

A question to the board: do you agree this would be a good time to get 
detailed legal advice on how to go about relicensing the rest of Squeak 
so that the move is legally valid?

Daniel

Diego Gomez Deck wrote:
>> If someone could build a suitable page on a swiki (for example) for  
>> this I would be very happy to declare everything I've previously  
>> contributed as available under any relevant license or indeed, non- 
>> license.
>>     
>
> We also need to include APSL2 license in SqueakMap (and SqueakSource?).
>
> I'll also publish all my contributions in any license we agreed.  To
> start I can re-license everything as "MIT/APSL2/SqueakL".
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Diego
>
>
>
>

headers

Andreas Raab | 25 May 20:51

Re: The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.

> As Andreas demonstrated,  it is not obvious that you can relicense code
> you've written just because you wish to.

I did? I thought I did the precise opposite, namely demonstrating that 
there are many bits and pieces that I *can* relicense nilly-willy 
because I own them and have proof of that ownership 

Cheers,
   - Andreas

  If you were employed at the
> time of writing the code, it may (or may not) be copyright your 
> employer, and in some countries this is the case by default.
> 
> Sounds to me like gathering all the employment dates of everyone on the 
> wiki might be a bit too public, what do people think? I was just 
> starting to make a page to gather this information when the thought 
> occurred to me...
> 
> A question to the board: do you agree this would be a good time to get 
> detailed legal advice on how to go about relicensing the rest of Squeak 
> so that the move is legally valid?
> 
> Daniel
> 
> Diego Gomez Deck wrote:
>>> If someone could build a suitable page on a swiki (for example) for  
>>> this I would be very happy to declare everything I've previously  
>>> contributed as available under any relevant license or indeed, non- 
>>> license.
>>>     
>>
>> We also need to include APSL2 license in SqueakMap (and SqueakSource?).
>>
>> I'll also publish all my contributions in any license we agreed.  To
>> start I can re-license everything as "MIT/APSL2/SqueakL".
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> -- Diego
>>
>>
>>
>>   
> 
> 
>

headers

tim Rowledge | 25 May 21:32

Re: The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.

On 25-May-06, at 11:51 AM, Andreas Raab wrote:

>> As Andreas demonstrated,  it is not obvious that you can relicense  
>> code
>> you've written just because you wish to.
>
> I did? I thought I did the precise opposite, namely demonstrating  
> that there are many bits and pieces that I *can* relicense nilly- 
> willy because I own them and have proof of that ownership 

But the fact that you own 'many bits' carries the clear implication  
that you don't own other bits, which is likely the situation for many  
of us.

I'm pretty sure that I can claim legitimate control over all the code  
I've provided. A lot of VM and VMMaker code was written explicitly to  
release to the Squeak community and I assert that means giving it  
freely. There is also the point that Interval and exobox no longer  
exist to drop lawyers on us as well as the management in both cases  
being desirous of helping the community. Other code was written for  
VPRI with the explicit intention of giving it to the community and  
then recent stuff done for Sophie is likewise explicitly intended to  
be open. All the rest was done in my own time anyway and I consider  
that gifted to Squeak.

tim
--
tim Rowledge; tim <at> rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
Useful random insult:- Got into the gene pool while the lifeguard  
wasn't watching.

headers

Alan Kay | 26 May 02:07

Re: The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.

The deal we had with Disney was to release to the community, as free and 
open source, all code not having directly to do with "content and/or 
product", and we did this continuously with their blessing. The code we 
left behind (several products, etc.) belonged to Disney (and we indeed left 
it there).

Cheers,

Alan

At 12:32 PM 5/25/2006, tim Rowledge wrote:

>On 25-May-06, at 11:51 AM, Andreas Raab wrote:
>
>>>As Andreas demonstrated,  it is not obvious that you can relicense
>>>code
>>>you've written just because you wish to.
>>
>>I did? I thought I did the precise opposite, namely demonstrating
>>that there are many bits and pieces that I *can* relicense nilly- willy 
>>because I own them and have proof of that ownership 
>
>But the fact that you own 'many bits' carries the clear implication
>that you don't own other bits, which is likely the situation for many
>of us.
>
>I'm pretty sure that I can claim legitimate control over all the code
>I've provided. A lot of VM and VMMaker code was written explicitly to
>release to the Squeak community and I assert that means giving it
>freely. There is also the point that Interval and exobox no longer
>exist to drop lawyers on us as well as the management in both cases
>being desirous of helping the community. Other code was written for
>VPRI with the explicit intention of giving it to the community and
>then recent stuff done for Sophie is likewise explicitly intended to
>be open. All the rest was done in my own time anyway and I consider
>that gifted to Squeak.
>
>
>tim
>--
>tim Rowledge; tim <at> rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
>Useful random insult:- Got into the gene pool while the lifeguard
>wasn't watching.
>
>

headers

Serge Stinckwich | 26 May 13:24

Re: The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.

Alan Kay a écrit :
> The deal we had with Disney was to release to the community, as free and 
> open source, all code not having directly to do with "content and/or 
> product", and we did this continuously with their blessing. The code we 
> left behind (several products, etc.) belonged to Disney (and we indeed 
> left it there).
> 

Hi Alan,

it means we could also release the last version of Squeak done by 
SqueakCentral (3.5 ? 3.6 ?) with an APSL2 licence. And if everybody that 
add some code since this version in the image, agree with the term of 
this licence, the 3.9 version could also release with the APSL2 licence 
(or a more simpler one like MIT) ?

--                                                         oooo
Dr. Serge Stinckwich                                     OOOOOOOO
Université de Caen>CNRS UMR 6072>GREYC>MAD               OOESUGOO
http://purl.org/net/SergeStinckwich                       oooooo
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]   \  /
                                                             ##

headers

Alan Kay | 26 May 18:04

Re: The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.

Hi Serge --

(mod) the copyright mess and copyright lawyers... yes, we have been careful 
at Disney and then at HP to make sure that the code is put out free and 
open source according to the Squeak licence and in agreement with these 
companies.  So, in theory, it is. And, also in theory, it should be 
relatively easy to deal with all the subsequent code.

Cheers,

Alan

At 04:24 AM 5/26/2006, Serge Stinckwich wrote:
>Alan Kay a écrit :
>>The deal we had with Disney was to release to the community, as free and 
>>open source, all code not having directly to do with "content and/or 
>>product", and we did this continuously with their blessing. The code we 
>>left behind (several products, etc.) belonged to Disney (and we indeed 
>>left it there).
>
>Hi Alan,
>
>it means we could also release the last version of Squeak done by 
>SqueakCentral (3.5 ? 3.6 ?) with an APSL2 licence. And if everybody that 
>add some code since this version in the image, agree with the term of this 
>licence, the 3.9 version could also release with the APSL2 licence (or a 
>more simpler one like MIT) ?
>
>
>--                                                         oooo
>Dr. Serge Stinckwich                                     OOOOOOOO
>Université de Caen>CNRS UMR 6072>GREYC>MAD               OOESUGOO
>http://purl.org/net/SergeStinckwich                       oooooo
>Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]   \  /
>                                                             ##
>
>
>
>
>

headers

stéphane ducasse | 26 May 22:52

Re: The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.


On 25 mai 06, at 20:14, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:

> A question to the board: do you agree this would be a good time to  
> get detailed legal advice on how to go about relicensing the rest  
> of Squeak so that the move is legally valid?

Yes, let us try to do it avoid making mistakes.

headers

Craig Latta | 25 May 07:08

re: The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.


Hi Daniel--

 > [Let's make] it clear what code in the image remains tainted, to
 > encourage rewrites.

	Right; I've been planning to implement license metadata for behavior, 
to go along with authorship metadata, but I hadn't decided which 
granularity to use (per-method? per-method-bytecode?). I'll go with 
per-method and per-class-definition for now.

 > Say, Craig, how much code is there in Spoon that is not covered by
 > this new license and not copyright Craig Latta?

	The only thing I can think of offhand is the support for weak 
references, done by Andreas at Di... Di... no, I'm not going to be the 
first one to mention the next sleeping dog in public. ;)  I'd assumed it 
would stay in the minimal system, at least to support Symbol interning.

	I'll be doing a thorough analysis of who owns what in Spoon.

	thanks,

-C

--

-- 
Craig Latta
improvisational musical informaticist
www.netjam.org
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]

headers

Andreas Raab | 25 May 08:23

Re: The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.

>  > Say, Craig, how much code is there in Spoon that is not covered by
>  > this new license and not copyright Craig Latta?
> 
>     The only thing I can think of offhand is the support for weak 
> references, done by Andreas at Di... Di... no, I'm not going to be the 
> first one to mention the next sleeping dog in public. ;)

Actually, no. There is quite a bit of work in Squeak that I have done 
that is clearly not owned by the mouse and where I have proof for it. 
Weak references is one of them, see for example:

http://isgwww.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/~raab/squeak/dev/Finalization/2.0/ObjectMemory-Finalization.st

This was released in May 98 (I can probably still find some email 
conversation that goes back into 97) and I started working at Disney in 
December '98 (finalization first appeared in 2.3 I think which was 
released late 98, too). And although I did some consulting work in mid 
to late '98 for Alan's group that code was long released by then. I did 
it on my own, in my spare time and I own the copyright to these 
modifications. (besides that particular code is stupid and should be 
replaced anyway; I now know much better and easier and more flexible 
ways to deal with finalization)

Cheers,
   - Andreas

headers

Craig Latta | 25 May 08:31

re: The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.


	Excellent! Thanks for that info.

-C

--

-- 
Craig Latta
improvisational musical informaticist
www.netjam.org
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]

headers

stéphane ducasse | 26 May 22:34

Re: The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.

On squeakSource you can find a stupid package that return the authors  
of the package.
AuthorChecker does not take into account history just the latest  
version.
If someone wants to add that, feel free.

Stef

> 1. Finding for each method in recent Squeak, the names of all  
> persons who've modified them. The history images should make this  
> feasible.
>
> Daniel

headers

Ron Teitelbaum | 25 May 03:31

RE: The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.

All,

That is really great news!  Thank you everyone at Viewpoints Research for
taking this on and making real progress!  

I agree with Jimmie we need to organize quickly and release a newly licensed
version, and we should continue pushing new code toward MIT.  The MIT is my
own personal opinion but it needs to be well thought out.

There does seem to be some questions as to the best license to adopt if we
are considering doing a 501(c)3 US corporation.  The details about free
licenses, agreements to distribute compilations with the copyright being
kept by the authors, or having copyrights signed over to the foundation are
not quite clear to me, so I would suggest we get good advice upfront before
moving too far forward.  

How we proceed from here could significantly impact the community.  The
questions that I believe need to be answered are: 

	1) How does the community feel about signing agreements to
contribute code?  (Will having to accept something prevent people from
contributing?)
	2a) Would everyone agree to sign over their copyrights to the Squeak
foundation?
	2b) or would the community agree to sign over distribution rights to
the code instead
	3) Is there a benefit of one or the other (2a-b) for obtaining
501(c)3 status?
	4) Are there presidents we should be following for 501(c)3 license
agreements?  (Will the MIT license stand up to the public good test, how
will copyright ownership by SqF be viewed by the IRS?)

Do we need to actually rebuild a version from 1.1 that we receive from
Viewpoints?

I would think that it is possible to have and electronic version of a
license agreement that is accepted each time new code is submitted, and when
code is downloaded.  Maybe the contributors' acceptance of the license
agreement could be tracked on squeakSouce?  

Like Daniel, I'm very happy to put the license issues behind us!

Congratulations to all!

Ron Teitelbaum
President / Principal Software Engineer
US Medical Record Specialists 
Ron <at> USMedRec.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig Latta
> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 1:38 PM

> 	Thanks to long-running efforts by folks at Viewpoints Research
> Institute, Apple Computer and elsewhere, Apple has given Viewpoints
> permission to make a release of the original public Squeak system using
> the Apple Public Source License.

headers

Wolfgang Helbig | 25 May 19:18

Re: The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.

Hi,

is there any chance to get this license cover Smalltalk-80 V2, its sources and 
image file as copyrighted and released 1983 by Xerox? And if so, who would be 
the one to ask?

Regards,
Wolfgang
--
Weniger, aber besser.

headers

Ken Causey | 25 May 21:48

Re: The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.

Daniel said:
> A question to the board: do you agree this would be a good time to get 
> detailed legal advice on how to go about relicensing the rest of Squeak 
> so that the move is legally valid?

Cees previously said

"Indeed. Still, I'll happily base any decisions on how to document
relicensing decisions on the advice we'll hopefully get from our legal
friends, like Dan Ravicher. Bringing the SFLC in is probably step #1."

So that at least indicates someone on the Board is thinking in that direction.

Ken

SFLC = Software Freedom Law Center IIRC

headers

stéphane ducasse | 26 May 22:31

Re: The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.

I think that we should take the opportunity to put in place a way to  
track squeak developers/contributors
so that we avoid license mess.

I think that we (the squeakfoundation) will be looking for a  
volunteer (may be payed) to develop a small
app so that contributors can sign in that the code going into the  
image is under APSL2 or MIT or Squeak-L.

Stef

On 24 mai 06, at 19:38, Craig Latta wrote:

>
> Hi all--
>
> 	Thanks to long-running efforts by folks at Viewpoints Research  
> Institute, Apple Computer and elsewhere, Apple has given Viewpoints  
> permission to make a release of the original public Squeak system  
> using the Apple Public Source License[1].
>
> 	Squeak 1.1, with an APSL2 license, is available here:
>
> 	http://squeakland.org/installers/Squeak1.1-APSL.zip
>
> 	The Squeak Foundation board would like to thank the above groups  
> for making this happen, and everyone else for being so patient!
>
> 	And now we live in interesting times. This only applies to the  
> original release of Squeak (version 1.1 of 23 September 1996); we  
> now have a choice between APSL2 and the original Squeak License[2]  
> for that release. We need to decide what to do about subsequent  
> code, and code written by third parties. We might choose to rewrite  
> some things so as to create a better licensing situation. We  
> probably want to have a policy whereby contributors agree to grant  
> a particular license to their work explicitly before we can accept it.
>
> 	How shall we proceed with future releases of Squeak? Let's discuss  
> it.
>
>
> 	thanks again,
> 	your Squeak Foundation board
>
> [1] http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/2.0.txt
> [2] http://www.squeak.org/SqueakLicense
>
> -- 
> Craig Latta
> improvisational musical informaticist
> www.netjam.org
> Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]
>
>
>