[hidden email] a écrit :
>> hi >> >> I saw this recent post (2007-11-21) giving a good view of what's missing. >> Did you see it ? or you're looking for something else ? >> >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.smalltalk.squeak.general/120613/focus=120645 >> >> > wrong one... sorry > > 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. 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 |
In reply to this post by Göran Krampe
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: > Hi! > > "Ralph Johnson" <[hidden email]> wrote: > > If you want to see Squeak relicensed then perhaps you should volunteer > > to work on rewriting the methods from authors who have not signed an > > agreement. First, of course, you should sign an agreement. > > I mentioned awhile back that I could take on a little bit of this and > here is a first small contribution - a rewrite of methods tagged as > Jerry Achibald (not with us anymore): > > http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=6800 > > Might need a tiny bit of test/reviewing but I hope it is clean. > > regards, Göran > > |
In reply to this post by cbeler
[hidden email] a écrit :
>> hi >> >> I saw this recent post (2007-11-21) giving a good view of what's missing. >> Did you see it ? or you're looking for something else ? >> >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.smalltalk.squeak.general/120613/focus=120645 >> >> > wrong one... sorry > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.smalltalk.squeak.general/120620 > > > 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. |
In reply to this post by timrowledge
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: > 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 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 |
In reply to this post by Ron Teitelbaum
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)] |
In reply to this post by Jason Johnson-5
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)] |
In reply to this post by Hilaire Fernandes-4
>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)] |
In reply to this post by Göran Krampe
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 |
In reply to this post by Göran Krampe
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)] |
In reply to this post by Hilaire Fernandes-4
> > > 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)] |
In reply to this post by timrowledge
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 > -----Original Message----- > From: tim Rowledge > > > 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 > > |
In reply to this post by ccrraaiigg
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 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)] > > > |
In reply to this post by ccrraaiigg
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 |
In reply to this post by stephane ducasse
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: > Hi guys > > I'm happy to see that our book has been donwloaded 11708 times so far. > The french version is around 70% and apparently some people started a > translation in spanish. Excellent! > If you want to help please join, we can also offer svn hostings if > necessary. > > Now we are discussing giving to squeakfoundation a part of the small > amount of money we make for the > printed version (but this is not too much and so far merely covered > the cost of ISBN and other). > > What is important is that we would really like to make this book a > success to show that we do not need publishers > anymore and that a documentation may exist: > > So you can do three things: > - buy the book :). The quality of the printed version is quite good. > - write new chapters (more costly) for the next volume > - translate it to new languages. > > Why this is important: because else people will not do it again and I > would like to have a case to show that this > is worht the energy (It is a dream because this took us for too much > time). > > Stef > > > ------------------------ > Stéphane Ducasse > USTL - LILF - CNRS UMR 8022 - INRIA > [hidden email] > http://stephane.ducasse.free.fr > > "if you knew today was your last day on earth, what would you do > different? ... especially if, by doing something different, today > might not be your last day on earth" Calvin&Hobbes > > > |
In reply to this post by ccrraaiigg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 Craig Latta a écrit : > > Bert writes: > >> The board is currently in contact with the Software Freedom Law Center >> for [whether small contributions can be accepted without a license] >> and other issues around the relicensing. > > Hilaire responds: > >> We are listening to this music since months... >> May be turning to Face B ;-) > > Hilaire, this work involves pro bono lawyer time. It is not > possible to force the lawyers in question to help any faster than they > are. The Squeak leadership agrees that the people helping us now, the > Software Freedom Law Center, are the best people for the job. If you > have a better suggestion, please make it. 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----- |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |