Ideas of gift :)

[hidden email] a écrit :
Yes, it is helpful. Thanks. I think I was sleeping when it came out.
Then from this list we can prepare 10 or 20 (it depends on how big it
is) smaller packages to share the rewrite workload with the community.

Does it sound doable for the community?

Hilaire

Is there no other option for people who passed on before the current
world of copywriter longer then the constitution then rewriting their
code?  The chance of them suing for copy write violation has to be
low.  I assume the rights to the code goes to their survivors.  Has
any attempt been made to ask the heirs what they want done with the
code?  I would expect most of them would want the code to be
immortalized in Squeak rather then tossed and forgotten.

On Dec 6, 2007 1:35 PM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:

[hidden email] a écrit :
Could someone put the list on the wiki so that we can report progress
and update information?

Nicolas

>
> Could someone put the list on the wiki so that we can report progress
> and update information?
>
> Nicolas
>
>

Sure some of the work is done already.

For example i rewrote recently Float>>raisedTo: at
http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=6781.

Hi All,

When I saw the list of code from Andrew that needed to be rewritten I
thought to myself oh there are some methods I could bang out pretty quickly.
Then I thought about it.  If I can not look at the method to rewrite it then
how can I be sure that I've captured what the method does by its name?  I
can guess what it does but it would be quite easy to get it wrong and not
support some side functionally that is not obvious by the name.  Or I may
just interpret it differently.

So my question is this.  How can we capture the functionally of the missing
methods so that they can be rewritten?  Is it acceptable for someone to
review both the old method and the new method to verify that the new author
did it properly, or is that not ok either?  Could someone review the old
method and write pseudo code or some sort of specification for someone else
to use as a map to create the new method?  If I have reviewed or used the
method previously and know more about it from experience am I ineligible to
do the rewrite?  

I guess my question is this: What process should we use to rewrite and
verify new methods?  Can SFLC give us any guidance concerning what practices
are acceptable for reverse engineering with regard to copyright?

Thanks,
Ron Teitelbaum

P.S. I also realized that the list from Andrew was incomplete because it
doesn't include any external packages.  I assume that we will take up
packages after completing the core image.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tim Rowledge
>
> If having the license finally sorted out is truly important to you -
> anyone - then please offer assistance to help us get it solved sooner
> rather than later. Offer to ferret out one or more of the missing
> authors, or to rewrite some of the worrisome methods. It it is
> important to your business, perhaps offering some bounty cash to
> others to do rewrites might help.

Hello Ron,


RT> I guess my question is this: What process should we use to rewrite and
RT> verify new methods?  Can SFLC give us any guidance concerning what practices
RT> are acceptable for reverse engineering with regard to copyright?

one person writes tests the other implements the method? Would at
least have some additional benefits.

But then, what about tests that need to be rewritten?

Cheers

Herbert                            mailto:[hidden email]

On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 12:25:37 -0800, Herbert König <[hidden email]>  
wrote:

> But then, what about tests that need to be rewritten?

Replace the production code first using proven tests.

When the production code is verified, write new tests. In this case,  
you're actually using production code to validate the tests.<s>

Hi,

the ideal starting point is this file:
http://comtalk.net/public/pub/KernelImage/license/license2.ods
(OpenOffice).
The directory http://comtalk.net/public/pub/KernelImage/license/
contains some methods relicensed by Damien. The tests should be placed
in the RelicensingTests package in KernelImage repository
(http://www.squeaksource.com/KernelImage.html). There must be two
groups of workers - one group writes tests that completely describe
functionality of the methods and the second group starts to write
entire new methods. They must not see current version!
After relicensing of this about 300 methods the kernel image should be free.

Cheers,
-- Pavel

On Dec 6, 2007 9:31 PM, Blake <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi all!

Ok, I admit totally missing/forgetting/not thinking about what "rewrite"
had to mean.
So the code I submitted is reworked from the original methods - perhaps
it is just wasted then I guess.

Hmmm, this is a really bad situation we are in.

regards, Göran

Hi Ron--

 > What process should we use to rewrite and verify new methods?  Can
 > SFLC give us any guidance concerning what practices are acceptable for
 > reverse engineering with regard to copyright?

      I'm sure they can, and we are going to discuss this when I speak
with them next week.


      thanks,

-C

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

Hi Jason--

 > Has any attempt been made to ask the heirs what they want done with
 > the code?

      Not to my knowledge, no. Are you volunteering?


-C

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

 >http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.smalltalk.squeak.general/120620
 >
 > Yes, it is helpful. Thanks. I think I was sleeping when it came out.

      Are you really missing my point? Does it really make sense to ask
the same question multiple times in a worldwide forum in a period of
hours, when some of the participants really are asleep?

      Why are you being so rude?


-C

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

On 6-Dec-07, at 1:41 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> Hi all!
>
> Ok, I admit totally missing/forgetting/not thinking about what  
> "rewrite"
> had to mean.

Well, let's be honest here;  the only records we have are the author  
initials attached to methods. Each method may have many versions, or  
just one. Take a look at a few randomly and you'll notice that many  
versions are trivially different to preceeding versions. Who is the  
author? The last person to accept the method? The first? All of them?  
None?


tim
--
tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
A fool and his money are soon partying

Hi Göran--

 > Ok, I admit totally missing/forgetting/not thinking about what
 > "rewrite" had to mean. So the code I submitted is reworked from the
 > original methods - perhaps it is just wasted then I guess.
 >
 > Hmmm, this is a really bad situation we are in.

      Yeah, it is. This sort of thing is why I personally favor the
approach of just throwing stuff out in some automated way, and fixing
what breaks.


-C

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

 > > > The relicensing will just help to get more attention on
 > > > Squeak/Smalltalk from the free software community. But may be some
 > > > people does not want that or so ?
 > >
 > > Hey, come on... You already asked about the licensing once while
 > > I was asleep. At list give me a chance to wake up and respond to it
 > > before making comments like that. :)
 >
 > So you were sleeping for ten days :) (Today I just repoke from a mail
 > without feedback ten days ago!)

      I didn't see that one, I'm sorry. I was referring to the first of
your barrage of messages from last night, pacific time. Can you lose the
  sarcasm, please?

 > Really, as you wrote in another email, it will be helpful to have up
 > to date data regarding the situation with the signed agreement since
 > last July.

      About five more people have signed the agreement since then. I
have heard from a few others who say they plan to sign, but for whom I
have no confirmation of their having signed from Viewpoints.

      As I've said before, I think we're already past the point of
critical mass for agreements. The focus now should be on making a
release with no unlicensed code in it. You seem to think that the
timestamps on the contributor lists tells the whole story of activity
behind this effort. It doesn't. The more important part is joining the
Conservancy, and that's mostly about waiting for lawyers to call.

 > Who? Where? How? is it handled?

      VPRI drafted the contributor agreement and is collecting the
signatures. I believe this was clear from reading
http://netjam.org/squeak/contributors/.

 > So is Christmas a viable target?

      No, I don't think we'll have prepared a release with all
unlicensed code removed by then. Most of the community is even busier
than usual around now, precisely because it's close to Christmas. We
also have more legal questions for the Conservancy to answer, and as I
said before, we can't dictate to them how they spend their time.


-C

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

Hi,

This is a very good question.  I think the answer from Craig's comments,
(please correct me if I'm wrong here IANAL) is that the contribution has to
represent a significant change to be copyrightable.  Formatting, comments,
adding or removing temps would not count as original material.  So the
author is the person that contributed a significant portion of original
material to the current version.

Why would this be a good test?  I think because without the improvement
represented by a significant change, the method would have no or limited
utility.  Now if the method represents something that is obvious, and it
could be reproduced without reference to the original code, (reengineered)
that would be considered an original contribution and not a derivation.

If we could adopt a previous version from someone that signed the agreement,
(and that person represents an original contribution, or a significant
change from the original method) and we reapplied a bug fix or a feature
addition to bring the method up to current levels, that may be easier then
starting the method from scratch.

We need some advice on how to move forward.

Ron

Do we have information on who the heirs would be and how to get in
touch with them, or does the person who takes this up have to turn
into Sherlock Holmes for a while?  It sounds to me like some people on
this list knew the folks who are no longer with us.

All I know is, if I ever contribute something major to the community I
would hate to think that all my work would be thrown away and forgot
due to some situation that didn't exist when I was alive.  If the
people contributed then this probably meant something to them.

On Dec 6, 2007 11:55 PM, Craig Latta <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi!

Craig Latta <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi Jason--
>
>  > Has any attempt been made to ask the heirs what they want done with
>  > the code?
>
>       Not to my knowledge, no. Are you volunteering?

I have had a small contact with Henrik Gedenryd's sister - so I could
talk to her - but before I do that I would like to know more about how
to proceed with such an endeavour - from SFLC I guess.

regards, Göran

Hi Stef,

is there any chance to get the book via Amazon? I think that would
give it some more visibility besides making it a bit easier to buy.

Cheers

Matthias



On Dec 6, 2007 9:53 AM, stephane ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Craig Latta a écrit :
What about the free software foundation, may be they can provide input
in a quicker way.
The resigning agreement has started in 2006, in one month it will be
2008. It is really too long. I wonder if the KDE relicensing will take
that long

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHWSGQSAvrR6lz6PQRAvQ3AJ92aZ6+/YfG7ksSARZZZB7Q6M89IQCcCR1Q
+IFUnmVJCZZipFCrxbVJYSk=
=xL5X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----