4.0 Announcement?

Folks -

Should we put up an announcement on both squeak.org and the board blog
for people to refer to? Here's my take:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Immediate Release

The Squeak project (http://www.squeak.org) announced today the public
release of Squeak 4.0. This release completes the multi-year effort to
relicense Squeak under FOSS licenses.

Squeak 4.0 is functionally equivalent to the previous Squeak 3.10.2
release but licensed under the MIT license
(http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php) with some original
parts remaining under the Apache license
(http://www.opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php).

Current development work will be released as 4.1 as soon as possible
following the release of 4.0.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Cheers,
   - Andreas

Isn't all the fanfare a bit premature seeing as how it hasn't been accepted by SFC yet?

At least to my knowledge the deal hasn't been signed yet, or did I miss the discussion of the contract and the announcement?
Who even is authorized to sign the contract on behalf of the SOB and the community?

Ken G. Brown

At 11:32 AM -0700 3/16/10, Andreas Raab apparently wrote:

>>>>> "Ken" == Ken G Brown <[hidden email]> writes:

Ken> Isn't all the fanfare a bit premature seeing as how it hasn't been
Ken> accepted by SFC yet?

It has.  We've followed everything the SFLC has required of us.

This does not make us part of the SFC *yet*.  It merely makes us *eligible*.

Ken> At least to my knowledge the deal hasn't been signed yet, or did I miss
Ken> the discussion of the contract and the announcement?

The discussion has been summarized here many times of the conversation
between the SOB and the SFC.

Ken> Who even is authorized to sign the contract on behalf of the SOB and the
Ken> community?

The SFC accepts that the duly-elected SOB can sign on behalf of the community.
That's good enough for me.

--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<[hidden email]> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion

A web page summarizing the state of the license effort would be helpful.

On 2010-03-16, at 11:53 AM, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:

> The discussion has been summarized here many times of the conversation
> between the SOB and the SFC.

--
===========================================================================
John M. McIntosh <[hidden email]>   Twitter:  squeaker68882
Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd.  http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com
===========================================================================

At 11:53 AM -0700 3/16/10, Randal L. Schwartz apparently wrote:
Is the correspondence between the SOB and the SFLC available for looking at somewhere?

Who is able to sign on behalf of the board?

Do all board members have to sign unanimously?

Or does the SOB have a designated signing authority or several?

Ken G. Brown

>>>>> "John" == John M McIntosh <[hidden email]> writes:

John> A web page summarizing the state of the license effort would be helpful.

>From http://squeakboard.wordpress.com/:

   Relatedly we continue to work with the Software Freedom Conservancy to
   finalize issues related to our joining this organization.  We are hopeful
   of completing this not long after Squeak 4.0 is released as this release is
   essential to the process

...

   The Squeak Oversight Board plans to finalize the multi-year effort of
   re-licensing Squeak. Squeak 4.0 is scheduled to be released on Monday,
   March 15th, 2010 and will be licensed under the MIT License with some
   original parts remaining under the Apache License. This release will be
   functionally equivalent to the previous 3.10.2 release. Current development
   work will be released as 4.1 as soon as possible following the release of
   4.0.

...

    Our discussions with the Software Freedom Conservancy continues and
    progress is occurring, if slowly at times.  Right now we are clarifying
    the exact wording regarding the licensing of the 4.0 release.  Squeak was
    originally released under a license written by Apple that we refer to as
    the Squeak License.

    In 2006 Apple agreed to relicense the final release of Squeak from Apple
    (1.1) under the Apple Public Source License.  After further thoughts and
    discussions this was decided to be a less than optimal choice and Apple
    agreed to relicense the release, this time under the Apache License.

    Since that time work has been going on to solicit agreement from Squeak
    contributors to relicense all subsequent contributions under the MIT
    License.  The result now is that parts of the image that are clearly
    descendants from the 1.1 release are under the Apache License and more
    recent contributions are under the MIT License.  These two licenses are
    compatible.

    The question is whether we can simply say ‘MIT License’ or have to say
    something like ‘parts under the Apache License with the remainder under
    the MIT License’.  We are awaiting guidance from SFC on this issue.  Once
    we sort that out we will be announcing the intent to officially release a
    version under the new licensing conditions as widely as possible with the
    goal of ensuring that all contributors to Squeak are aware of the change.

--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<[hidden email]> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion

>>>>> "Ken" == Ken G Brown <[hidden email]> writes:

Ken> Is the correspondence between the SOB and the SFLC available for looking
Ken> at somewhere?

The correspondence is with the SOB, and is part of the SOB's private
repository.  The parts for public consumption have already been published on
the board blog or squeak-dev.

Ken> Who is able to sign on behalf of the board?

Ken> Do all board members have to sign unanimously?

Ken> Or does the SOB have a designated signing authority or several?

The SFC is requesting that *all* members of the SOB at the time of the joining
sign off.  We've accepted that request.  Of course, if the incoming board has
a different opinion, they're free to renegotiate. :)

--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<[hidden email]> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion