License proposals - any progress?

Hi,

Is there any progress at all on the proposed change to the Swazoo license?

I see nothing on this list, so I'm guessing nothing is happening, but
I have been surprised before.

All the best,
    Bruce
--
Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills
http://www.openskills.org/

Bruce Badger wrote:

> Is there any progress at all on the proposed change to the Swazoo license?
>
> I see nothing on this list, so I'm guessing nothing is happening, but
> I have been surprised before.

Well, we are still waiting for your decision about my proposal to change
license to MIT.

As I said all contributors I contacted were for the change or they
didn't care about which license is chosen, just that is the best for
Swazoo and Smalltalk community. No one was against, except you and Ken
Treis, but Ken is willing to listen and compromise.

I think I contacted most of contributors, at least from list you made
from Store repository. I contacted also Dolphin guys. I remember only
Aleksander Bandlelj, who did interface to OpenSSL library, but this one
is currently unmaintainable and not part of Swazoo 2.x.

I therefore think we have the answer of most if not all contributors and
the answer is clear. We are now waiting for you to make a decision and I
really hope it will be in line with will of majority.

Best regards
Janko

--
Janko Mivšek
Svetovalec za informatiko
Eranova d.o.o.
Ljubljana, Slovenija
www.eranova.si
tel:  01 514 22 55
faks: 01 514 22 56
gsm: 031 674 565

2008/7/7 Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]>:
> Bruce Badger wrote:
>
>> Is there any progress at all on the proposed change to the Swazoo license?
>>
>> I see nothing on this list, so I'm guessing nothing is happening, but
>> I have been surprised before.
>
> Well, we are still waiting for your decision about my proposal to change
> license to MIT.

Heh, you've had my response to that several times (see the list
archives).  What we need is the list of all the other contributors
since the license change discussion can not even start until all the
contributors to the current LGPLed code base have been identified.

So, do we have the list of all contributors?  I made a start on it for
you on the basis of what I saw in the Cincom public Store repository.
Have you done anything more on this, Janko?

Has anything else happened with regard to your proposed license
change, Janko?  Any progress of any kind at all?

Thanks,
    Bruce
--
Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills
http://www.openskills.org/

Bruce Badger wrote:
A complete list of contributors is hard if not impossible to find. You
made one out od Store list, but how you'll find all others, from Dolphin
for instance?

Anyway, we need to decide that a strong majority of contributors is
enough for decision. Finding them all is just an utopia.

Another possibility is that we separate contributors of main line of
development (on VW) from those who ported and maintain ports on other
dialects. Main line of contributors is therefore known from your list
from Store and we can proceed with license change.

Best regards
Janko



--
Janko Mivšek
Svetovalec za informatiko
Eranova d.o.o.
Ljubljana, Slovenija
www.eranova.si
tel:  01 514 22 55
faks: 01 514 22 56
gsm: 031 674 565

2008/7/7 Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]>:
> Anyway, we need to decide that a strong majority of contributors is
> enough for decision. Finding them all is just an utopia.

This is not about a vote, even if you really did have a majority for
one proposal.  This is a copyright issue and so each copyright holder
must agree.

> Another possibility is that we separate contributors of main line of
> development (on VW) from those who ported and maintain ports on other
> dialects. Main line of contributors is therefore known from your list
> from Store and we can proceed with license change.

And so end up with n projects?  In your role as project leader, you
seriously suggest this?

I'm reminded of the story of Solomon and the baby for whom two women
claimed to be the mother.

--
Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills
http://www.openskills.org/

Bruce,

I have no axe to grind about the various contributions to Swazoo. The difference between the licenses seems to be the difference between freedom and control. MIT offers freedom, GPL offers control. Personally I vote for freedom.

As to your comments about leadership and Janko, I have to say that in the one year I have been involved with the AIDA community, Janko has demonstrated excellent leadership, just what the community needs. He has responded appropriately to many different situations and led by example, while at the same time encouraging and helping newcomers.

Solomon was a judge with keen insight, able to distinguish genuine affection and the wish to share from simple possessiveness.

Nicholas


Bruce Badger wrote:

2008/7/7 Janko Mivšek [hidden email]:
  

Anyway, we need to decide that a strong majority of contributors is
enough for decision. Finding them all is just an utopia.
    

This is not about a vote, even if you really did have a majority for
one proposal.  This is a copyright issue and so each copyright holder
must agree.

  

Another possibility is that we separate contributors of main line of
development (on VW) from those who ported and maintain ports on other
dialects. Main line of contributors is therefore known from your list
from Store and we can proceed with license change.
    

And so end up with n projects?  In your role as project leader, you
seriously suggest this?

I'm reminded of the story of Solomon and the baby for whom two women
claimed to be the mother.

  

Nicholas,

2008/7/7 Nicholas Moore <[hidden email]>:
> I have no axe to grind about the various contributions to Swazoo. The
> difference between the licenses seems to be the difference between freedom
> and control. MIT offers freedom, GPL offers control. Personally I vote for
> freedom.

Heh.  I vote for freedom too, and the preservation of the same, viz
the GPL.  Indeed I voted and paid my dues by selecting Swazoo and
contributing so much time and energy to it.

I don't think that there is sole truth in the philosophical debate.
We can observe many well written arguments which suggest that the GPL
represents freedom and that BSD-like licenses (e.g. MIT) represent the
opposite (because freedoms are not preserved) ... and we see many well
written arguments that take the opposite view.

The thing is that in the very narrow dimension we are talking about
(hell, we're all talking about taking our time to write software and
make it freely available) the BSD and GPL are poles apart.  One is
"credit where credit is due", the other is "share-alike".

Why should people who have taken the time to think about this, and
then put lots of time and energy into an LGPL project abandon the
simple, and to many people very reasonable, share-alike model?

This is the question that needs to be answered.  So far the only
reasoned response is: because another project has settled on a 'credit
where credit is due' license.  Which is no more compelling than any
fad.

> As to your comments about leadership and Janko, I have to say that in the
> one year I have been involved with the AIDA community, Janko has
> demonstrated excellent leadership, just what the community needs. He has
> responded appropriately to many different situations and led by example,
> while at the same time encouraging and helping newcomers.

We have clearly seen very different sides of the man.  For our part,
we have seen Janko brush asside many years of work without any
discussion at all and also seen him ignore the copyrights of other and
try to strong-arm a change in the license.  I'm glad to hear of his
recent good works and hope that this is continued in the future.

Oddly, it was in the year that you mention that Janko tried to 'steal'
(i.e. infringe upon) people's copyrights.  Hmmm.

> Solomon was a judge with keen insight, able to distinguish genuine affection
> and the wish to share from simple possessiveness.

Indeed.

Best regards,
   Bruce
--
Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills
http://www.openskills.org/

Dear Swazooers,

Well, I'll stop responding again and again to such accusations and plain
lies. Anyone interested can go to the mailing list archive (soon to be
put to Nabble for even easier access) and there is evident, how the
events went through.

Also, those accusations show more that obviously what kind of man we
have in our community. I think we'll need to start dealing with that
issue soon.

Of course I'm also not perfect, I did some mistakes, but I also
apologize. For the sake of community, both Swazoo and Smalltalk.

I think my contribution to Swazoo is obvious from the timeline I posted
yesterday and I'm also very proud that Swazoo achieved such outstanding
performance recently. Swazoo is now also acknowledged as a serious
choice for the web server in Smalltalk world, which was the main goal in
our "manifesto" back in 2000 Camp Smalltalk in San Diego. And from the
published timeline it is quite obvious, who spent most years since then
improving and recently promoting Swazoo around. So my conscience is
clean and I really don't need to answer to such a guy as Bruce is.

Best regards
Janko




Bruce Badger wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsored by: SourceForge.net Community Choice Awards: VOTE NOW!
Studies have shown that voting for your favorite open source project,
along with a healthy diet, reduces your potential for chronic lameness
and boredom. Vote Now at http://www.sourceforge.net/community/cca08
_______________________________________________
Swazoo-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/swazoo-devel

Bruce


Bruce Badger wrote:

Nicholas,

2008/7/7 Nicholas Moore [hidden email]:
  

I have no axe to grind about the various contributions to Swazoo. The
difference between the licenses seems to be the difference between freedom
and control. MIT offers freedom, GPL offers control. Personally I vote for
freedom.
    

Heh.  I vote for freedom too, and the preservation of the same, viz
the GPL.  Indeed I voted and paid my dues by selecting Swazoo and
contributing so much time and energy to it.
  

Would you have devoted the same time and energy if Swazoo had already been licensed under MIT when you joined the project?

I don't think that there is sole truth in the philosophical debate.
We can observe many well written arguments which suggest that the GPL
represents freedom and that BSD-like licenses (e.g. MIT) represent the
opposite (because freedoms are not preserved) ... and we see many well
written arguments that take the opposite view.
  

The two kinds of license are structured and expressed very differently. Their psychological effects are also very different. When faced with opposing reasonable arguments we need to be clear about the interpretation we are placing on the terms involved. You must define freedom for this to be meaningful. Whose freedom, freedom to do something or freedom from something for instance?

This needs to be clarified in order to understand what it is that you seek. Do you want to be free to restrict how others use your code? Or do you want to be free to change the code of others? Or something else?

The thing is that in the very narrow dimension we are talking about
(hell, we're all talking about taking our time to write software and
make it freely available) the BSD and GPL are poles apart.  One is
"credit where credit is due", the other is "share-alike".

Why should people who have taken the time to think about this, and
then put lots of time and energy into an LGPL project abandon the
simple, and to many people very reasonable, share-alike model?

Who are the people that you are talking about?

This is the question that needs to be answered.  So far the only
reasoned response is: because another project has settled on a 'credit
where credit is due' license.  Which is no more compelling than any fad.
  

I don't think this accurately depicts the reason for the request to change. My understanding from re-reading all the emails is that the motive is to achieve acceptance in the broadest Smalltalk community. It is not because another project has settled on a 'credit where credit is due' license, although that would be a consequence of the change. I have seen no reference to that as a reason, although you have raised it several times.

The term 'fad' appears to be dismissive, what is the point you are trying to make?

As to your comments about leadership and Janko, I have to say that in the
one year I have been involved with the AIDA community, Janko has
demonstrated excellent leadership, just what the community needs. He has
responded appropriately to many different situations and led by example,
while at the same time encouraging and helping newcomers.
    

We have clearly seen very different sides of the man.  For our part,
we have seen Janko brush asside many years of work without any
discussion at all and also seen him ignore the copyrights of other and
try to strong-arm a change in the license.  I'm glad to hear of his
recent good works and hope that this is continued in the future.
  

The behaviour you describe is not evident in the email chain I have seen which discusses the license change. Janko has championed the cause of license change, as a good leader would, and why not? I saw no evidence of strong-arm tactics on his part, quite the reverse.

Oddly, it was in the year that you mention that Janko tried to 'steal'
(i.e. infringe upon) people's copyrights.  Hmmm.
  

This is inappropriate language among people who are contributing to the open source movement. It is very serious to publicly accuse somebody of trying to steal and you need to back up your claim. What was it that he tried to steal and how would you have suffered loss?

Best regards,
   Bruce
  

I am trying to understand your objections to the move to MIT. It is not yet clear to me whether this lies in the design of the license or some personal animosity on your part, as expressed in your comments above. We need to separate these two things because if it were to be the latter, then you would be in the position of allowing your personal feelings to adversely affect the whole community, something I am sure you would not want.


Nicholas



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsored by: SourceForge.net Community Choice Awards: VOTE NOW!
Studies have shown that voting for your favorite open source project,
along with a healthy diet, reduces your potential for chronic lameness
and boredom. Vote Now at http://www.sourceforge.net/community/cca08
_______________________________________________
Swazoo-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/swazoo-devel

2008/7/8 Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]>:
> Well, I'll stop responding again and again to such accusations and plain
> lies.

So, you deny announcing version 1.0 of Swazoo wihout any prior
discussion on this list and excluding from that release all the
OpenSkills work that had been over the years immediately prior to your
1.0 release?

and

You deny telling the Squeak community that Swazoo had been relicensed
under a BSD-like license without any prior discussion on this list?

No, I didn't think so.

Heh - and I see you have blocked access to the archive: " messages
have been excluded from this view by a project administrator.".  Thank
goodness for the Wayback machine.  That's what showed up your previous
dirty when trying to persuade the Squeak community that I was "lying"
about Swazoo being under the LGPL from inception to date - as it still
is.

Just open the Sourceforge archive, Janko, and let others judge for
themselves.  ... but I'm guessing you can't edit the sourceforge
archive, hence the new one?

> I think my contribution to Swazoo is obvious from the timeline

Heh, if it were true and if it reflected the amount of code
contributed, then perhaps.

> ... Swazoo achieved such outstanding
> performance recently. Swazoo is now also acknowledged as a serious
> choice for the web server in Smalltalk world

...  and I'm glad the small bits of code you extracted from Hyper
helped with that.  But just think how much further along we had been
if you had not excluded Hyper in the first place.

Regards,
    Bruce
--
Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills
http://www.openskills.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsored by: SourceForge.net Community Choice Awards: VOTE NOW!
Studies have shown that voting for your favorite open source project,
along with a healthy diet, reduces your potential for chronic lameness
and boredom. Vote Now at http://www.sourceforge.net/community/cca08
_______________________________________________
Swazoo-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/swazoo-devel

Nicholas,

> Would you have devoted the same time and energy if Swazoo had already been
> licensed under MIT when you joined the project?

There were several Smalltalk HTTP server projects I could have worked
with at the time, but only Swazoo was under the LGPL, so I decided to
work with Swazoo.  So the answer to your question is no.  If Swazoo
had not been under the LGPL I would not have made contributions to it.

> You must define freedom for this to be
> meaningful. Whose freedom, freedom to do something or freedom from something
> for instance?

Must I? :-)   I can say that I prefer the share-alike model because I
believe that this preserves freedoms.  That is, once a piece of
software is made freely available, it remains freely available.

If people are willing to invest time and energy into making some
software which other find useful, and then make that software
available at no immediate cost, I really don't think it's too much to
ask that people just share and share alike.

> I don't think this accurately depicts the reason for the request to change.
> My understanding from re-reading all the emails is that the motive is to
> achieve acceptance in the broadest Smalltalk community.

I don't buy into the idea that because one Smalltalk project selects a
license all other Smalltalk projects should be compelled to select the
same one.  We can all choose.

Let's turn this around, though.  What would happen, do you think, if
we suggested moving Squeak to a GPL like license or if we suggested
moving GNU Smalltalk to a BSD-like one?  I think we'd find that people
would say that they were invested in a particular viewpoint and that
they didn't want to change, thank you very much.

For myself, I'm OK with change, but I would still like us to be using
a share-alike license on this project.

> The behaviour you describe is not evident in the email chain I have seen

Heh - well, Janko has blocked access to the archive, so I'm not
surprised you can't see it the Swazoo mail list history.

But I can tell you that no mention at all was made on this list of a
proposal to change the license of Swazoo until after I found that
Janko was already telling people the license had been changed.  I'm
sure you saw the thread on the Squeak list.  If not, let me know and
I'll send you a link to their archive.

> Janko has championed the cause of
> license change

No.  Janko acted first (e.g. told the Squeak community that the
license had changed) and only when he was put right by wiser heads in
the Squeak community did he initiate any discussion here.

It was the same with Swazoo 1.0.  No prior discussion, Janko just
acted first (made version 1.0 and put out a press-release type thing)
and only *afterwards* did the discussion start about why he had
excluded Hyper.

A good leader would have discussed ideas with the team *before*
putting them into action.  And for things like a license change,
clearly quite a bit of work has to happen before one can say that the
license really has changes - just look at how long it all too for the
Squeak guys.

> I saw no evidence of strong-arm tactics on his part, quite the reverse.

?  I guess you really have not seen the Squeak thread, then?

> It is very serious to publicly accuse somebody of trying to
> steal

Janko was guilty of copyright infringement and in doing so has stolen
a great deal of my time.  This is indeed a serious matter, I agree.

Regards,
    Bruce
--
Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills
http://www.openskills.org/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsored by: SourceForge.net Community Choice Awards: VOTE NOW!
Studies have shown that voting for your favorite open source project,
along with a healthy diet, reduces your potential for chronic lameness
and boredom. Vote Now at http://www.sourceforge.net/community/cca08
_______________________________________________
Swazoo-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/swazoo-devel