Smalltalk › Squeak › Squeak - Dev

Google Summer Of Code 2010 news!!!

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

83 messages Options

12345

Stéphane Ducasse

Re: MIT strikes back (was Re: [smalltalk-research] Re: [Esug-list] Google Summer Of Code 2010 news!!!)

> What the starting point is will depend on to what extent Cog has
>>> been open sourced (Teleplace may choose to open source
>>> single-threaded Cog initially, keeping back the threaded FFI for
>>> a while, it may not open source Cog at all; we'll see :) ).
>> May be I the only one to notice the:) which I have problem to
>> understand since for me it announces that COG may not be
>> open-source.
>
> Isn't this what you wanted to allow companies to do, when you chose the
> MIT license? I don't understand, why should you care?
>
> I see some irony...

Not me. Freedom of choice is a political attitude. I understand GPL goal but I
do not adhere to it. I respect people pushing it but not in my way. I'm not sure
that we should debate that here but we do not have the single answer.

johnmci

Re: [smalltalk-research] Re: [Esug-list] Google Summer Of Code 2010 news!!!

In reply to this post by Gilad Bracha-2

Ok, I'm a bit behind in my email but I would help mentor if need be. Just to ensure it works ok on os-x and also to ensure support for objective-c creeps in there somehow since Apple's direction is towards everything in Objective-C frameworks versus "C" library calls.

On 2010-03-07, at 3:24 PM, Gilad Bracha wrote:

I'm all for it, and hope that John or Eliot can mentor. Datapoints I'll add:

There is some support for parsing C headers in the Newspeak system.
Aliens have been ported to Strongtalk as well as Squeak.

Finally - what licensing would apply if GNU Smalltalk were used? GPL is a big problem. Even LGPL elicits an immune response in a lot of commercial contexts. Is there a GSoC policy on this?

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck <[hidden email]> wrote:

5) Work on a cross-dialect foreign function call interface and implement it in at least two dialects. Candidates include Alien and GNU Smalltalk's CObject (using existing implementation has the advantage of having to implement in only _one_ other dialect!). Bonus points for implementing a C parser that would be able to construct bindings. GNU Smalltalk already contains a C preprocessor implementation.

I think this project could be a good idea for GSoC. As I said, I would love if it (optionally at least) could not to block the complete VM while a function is being called.

I would also love what you said: parse .h of libraries and automatically create the wrapper for Smalltalk. At least create the invocations to the functions, and map the structures to objects...

We need to write a title, a little description and if possible titles like "technical details", "benefits to the students" and "benefits to the community".

If you are interested please send it to me and I add it to the list.

We also need a mentor (and a student, of course)...anyone is willing to do it ?

Cheers

Mariano

--
Cheers, Gilad

===========================================================================

John M. McIntosh <[hidden email]> Twitter: squeaker68882

Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com

===========================================================================

Stephen Pair

Re: [Pharo-project] MIT strikes back (was Re: [smalltalk-research] Re: [Esug-list] Google Summer Of Code 2010 news!!!)

In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse

On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Nicolas Cellier <[hidden email]> wrote:

2010/3/10 Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]>:

>> What the starting point is will depend on to what extent Cog has
>>>> been open sourced (Teleplace may choose to open source
>>>> single-threaded Cog initially, keeping back the threaded FFI for
>>>> a while, it may not open source Cog at all; we'll see :) ).
>>> May be I the only one to notice the:) which I have problem to
>>> understand since for me it announces that COG may not be
>>> open-source.
>>
>> Isn't this what you wanted to allow companies to do, when you chose the
>> MIT license? I don't understand, why should you care?

We shouldn't. Well, except if previous annoucements strongly
suggested this would be the case...

>>
>> I see some irony...
> Not me. Freedom of choice is a political attitude. I understand GPL goal but I
> do not adhere to it. I respect people pushing it but not in my way. I'm not sure
> that we should debate that here but we do not have the single answer.
>
>

Not sure the goals differ much, but indeed these are two radically
different strategies.
The question is: would COG have ever started under a GPL derivative?
Who knows?
Since it did not happen, current choice is between an hypothetical
something MIT or nothing...
Bah, at least we already get a closure VM in Squeak.

I would guess that Cog would not have started because if squeak were under GPL, squeak wouldn't have been used by Teleplace to begin with...of course, that's just speculation on my part (and Cog may very well have gotten started under different circumstances).

I actually appreciate the role that the GPL played in the evolution of the GNU Unix tools. Without GPL, the Unix vendors would very likely have simply co-opted that code and sucked the life out of the GNU project very early on. I don't believe GPL should be used for squeak however (and I think there are general problems with that license as it relates to Smalltalk code (i.e. it was written with C like linking in mind)).

What I believe is needed is a license that has time limited, GPL like requirements for sharing enhancements and after that time period reverts to a pure and simple MIT license (where the conversion date can be chosen by the author). It is essential that such a date be specified in the license upon initial release. Each new version would also come under a new license that could have a timeout further into the future. That would help ensure that a project isn't co-opted early on by commercial interests while simultaneously ensuring that at a defined point in time, it becomes available for anyone to use without any restrictions of any kind (except the limitations on liability in the MIT license). It also would not preclude commercial interests from paying for a different license in that early period.

- Stephen

12345