License questions.
Locked
12
12
 
|
Hi.
Could I get my understanding of the licensing situation verified please: Squeak 1.1 was originally released under the Squeak license. It has since been relicensed under the Apache 2.0 license. All changes made since Squeak 1.1 were originally under the Squeak license. All changes made by people who have signed[1] the license agreement [2] are now under the MIT license. All changes made by people who have /not/ signed[3] the license agreement remain under the Squeak license. So, does this mean that all of Squeak, except the contributions by people who haven't signed the license agreement, is now (as of Squeak 3.10) released under the Apache 2.0 license? Are class definitions and documentation changes also taken into account when working out who the contributers are? My understanding of Squeak history is that Squeak was born in Apple, then was released and became an open source project, then the authors were hired by Disney and made more modifications, then left Disney to make Squeak what it is today. Were the changes made at Disney released under the Squeak license? Does Disney own the changes made, or do the individual contributers working for Disney own the changes? Are the changes made at Disney now released under MIT? How do you work out what changes were made at Disney (in the case that they are problematic)? Could I take a calculated risk and state that my work is hereby released under the Apache 2.0 license, and that anybody who hasn't signed the distribution agreement doesn't really care anyway? What is the worst case scenario here? Would a prior contributer sue me because I've stolen their Squeak-L based work and released it under the Apache 2.0 license? [1] http://www.netjam.org/squeak/contributors/signatories [2] http://netjam.org/squeak/SqueakDistributionAgreement.pdf [3] http://www.netjam.org/squeak/contributors/missingSignatories I'm asking this because I'm about to embark on some significant changes to the classes in Kernel and Collections for my SecureSqueak project. I want the end result of this work to be released under the Apache 2.0 license, if possible. These changes are scoped to Kernel, Collections and a handful of other classes. Gulik. -- http://people.squeakfoundation.org/person/mikevdg http://gulik.pbwiki.com/ |
|
|
Michael van der Gulik asks:
Could I get my understanding of the licensing situation verified please: Squeak 1.1 was originally released under the Squeak license. It has since been relicensed under the Apache 2.0 license. All changes made since Squeak 1.1 were originally under the Squeak license. All changes made by people who have signed[1] the license agreement [2] are now under the MIT license. All changes made by people who have /not/ signed[3] the license agreement remain under the Squeak license. > So, does this mean that all of Squeak, except the contributions by people who haven't signed the license > agreement, is now (as of Squeak 3.10) released under the Apache 2.0 license? Surely it means that most of Squeak 3.10 ("most" meaning "everything touched by a signatory since Squeak 1.1") is under the MIT licence? (Given that http://netjam.org/squeak/SqueakDistributionAgreement.pdf mentions MIT, not Apache 2.0.) > I'm asking this because I'm about to embark on some significant changes to the classes in Kernel and Collections > for my SecureSqueak project. I want the end result of this work to be released under the Apache 2.0 license, if > possible. These changes are scoped to Kernel, Collections and a handful of other classes. If I understand correctly, if you wanted these changes included in the Squeak "core" (whatever that means), the changes would have to be MIT licenced. frank |
|
|
On Jan 15, 2008, at 4:11 , Frank Shearar wrote:
> Surely it means that most of Squeak 3.10 ("most" meaning > "everything touched > by a signatory since Squeak 1.1") is under the MIT licence? (Given > that > http://netjam.org/squeak/SqueakDistributionAgreement.pdf mentions > MIT, not > Apache 2.0.) Correct - an Apache "base" with MIT extensions. > If I understand correctly, if you wanted these changes included in the > Squeak "core" (whatever that means), the changes would have to be MIT > licenced. Correct again. - Bert - |
Re: License questions.
|
|
In reply to this post by Frank Shearar
On Jan 15, 2008 10:11 PM, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote: Michael van der Gulik asks: My changes aren't intended for Squeak "core". They are going to be for a fork of Squeak called SecureSqueak (http://gulik.pbwiki.com/SecureSqueak ). The changes are a bit too radical to be incorporated into the squeak.org image, and they're guaranteed to be incompatible with every package ever written for Squeak :-). Everything I write that's written for Squeak is licensed under the MIT license. Gulik. -- http://people.squeakfoundation.org/person/mikevdg http://gulik.pbwiki.com/ |
Re: License questions.
|
|
In reply to this post by Bert Freudenberg
On Jan 16, 2008 2:47 AM, Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
Is it possible for Squeak to be considered an "Apache base with MIT extensions"? The base (Squeak 1.1 ) is obviously Apache licensed, and if you made a massive changeset of all changes since then, that changeset would be MIT licensed, but if you combine the two, the result would then need to be considered purely Apache licensed because of the complexity of determining what each bit of code is licensed under. For example, a method under the Apache license has a couple of lines changes and released under the MIT license. It is bordering on legal absurdity to have a work where every second clause would be under a different license. Even if the whole method had been rewritten, the class name and method name remain the same and thus under the original Apache license, and often a method name is about a quarter of the text of the method. If true, this would mean that the result of any changes I make to the Squeak Kernel would necessarily be released under the Apache license. Gulik. -- http://people.squeakfoundation.org/person/mikevdg http://gulik.pbwiki.com/ |
|
|
On 15-Jan-08, at 12:39 PM, Michael van der Gulik wrote: > Is it possible for Squeak to be considered an "Apache base with MIT > extensions"? The base (Squeak 1.1 ) is obviously Apache licensed, > and if you made a massive changeset of all changes since then, that > changeset would be MIT licensed, Nope, I don't think so. Aside from a number of people with changes in there that haven't yet signed the relicensing paperwork, there are large chunks that (probably) belong to Disney and HP. Bloody lawyers and big corporations... tim -- tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim Strange OpCodes: RTS: Rewind Tape and Shred |
|
|
tim Rowledge wrote:
> On 15-Jan-08, at 12:39 PM, Michael van der Gulik wrote: >> Is it possible for Squeak to be considered an "Apache base with MIT >> extensions"? The base (Squeak 1.1 ) is obviously Apache licensed, and >> if you made a massive changeset of all changes since then, that >> changeset would be MIT licensed, > Nope, I don't think so. Aside from a number of people with changes in > there that haven't yet signed the relicensing paperwork, there are large > chunks that (probably) belong to Disney and HP. Bloody lawyers and big > corporations... HP? Can you point to any code that is in Squeak which you believe is owned by HP? Cheers, - Andreas |
Re: License questions.
|
|
In reply to this post by timrowledge
On Jan 16, 2008 10:15 AM, tim Rowledge <[hidden email]> wrote:
How do I pick out the changes made at Disney so that I can rewrite them under MIT? Gulik. -- http://people.squeakfoundation.org/person/mikevdg http://gulik.pbwiki.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by Andreas.Raab
On 15-Jan-08, at 1:23 PM, Andreas Raab wrote: > tim Rowledge wrote: >> On 15-Jan-08, at 12:39 PM, Michael van der Gulik wrote: >>> Is it possible for Squeak to be considered an "Apache base with >>> MIT extensions"? The base (Squeak 1.1 ) is obviously Apache >>> licensed, and if you made a massive changeset of all changes since >>> then, that changeset would be MIT licensed, >> Nope, I don't think so. Aside from a number of people with changes >> in there that haven't yet signed the relicensing paperwork, there >> are large chunks that (probably) belong to Disney and HP. Bloody >> lawyers and big corporations... > > HP? Can you point to any code that is in Squeak which you believe is > owned by HP? that any code written by you folks whilst employed by HP belongs to HP. Do I remember explicitly what that code might include? NFW. So far we (as in 'the board') are finding this relicensing stuff to be staggeringly complicated and nitpicky. Every antecedent version of every method in the image has to be covered. The 'sublicensing' clause in the original SqL doesn't seem to impress the lawyers at all. tim -- tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim granary - old folks home |
|
|
In reply to this post by Michael van der Gulik-2
Hi Michael!
Module me not being a lawyer by a LOOONG shot - I think the answer is something like this: 1. Squeak 1.1: Apache 2 (and SqueakL and APSL but so what) 2. Modifications since then and signed: MIT 3. Modifications since then and not signed: SqueakL Imagining #3 above does not exist - then all code under #2 can trivially be relicensed by you under Apache 2 - since MIT allows that. Tada - full Apache 2. But the crux is #3 (as for example - Disney code). Anyone: correct me if I am wrong. regards, Göran |
|
|
In reply to this post by timrowledge
tim Rowledge wrote:
>> HP? Can you point to any code that is in Squeak which you believe is >> owned by HP? > I'm guessing (and only guessing right now) that lawyers would tell us > that any code written by you folks whilst employed by HP belongs to HP. > Do I remember explicitly what that code might include? NFW. Well, then let be be very clear: *All* the relevant code that Ian and I have written while being HP employees was contributed to the Croquet project. *All* the code contributed to the Croquet project by HP was approved by the OSS approval board inside HP to be contributed under the MIT license. Let's not complicate matters further by claiming "random big company X probably owns large chunks of Squeak". Cheers, - Andreas |
|
|
On 15-Jan-08, at 2:11 PM, Andreas Raab wrote: > tim Rowledge wrote: >>> HP? Can you point to any code that is in Squeak which you believe >>> is owned by HP? >> I'm guessing (and only guessing right now) that lawyers would tell >> us that any code written by you folks whilst employed by HP belongs >> to HP. >> Do I remember explicitly what that code might include? NFW. > > Well, then let be be very clear: *All* the relevant code that Ian > and I have written while being HP employees was contributed to the > Croquet project. *All* the code contributed to the Croquet project > by HP was approved by the OSS approval board inside HP to be > contributed under the MIT license. that were at HP? Is there any chance of a copy of whatever documentation is involved to show the SFLC lawyers? Is there any hope that Disney did the same? tim -- tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim "Bother" said Pooh, as the Vice Squad took his GIFS .. |
|
|
tim Rowledge wrote:
> On 15-Jan-08, at 2:11 PM, Andreas Raab wrote: >> tim Rowledge wrote: >>>> HP? Can you point to any code that is in Squeak which you believe is >>>> owned by HP? >>> I'm guessing (and only guessing right now) that lawyers would tell us >>> that any code written by you folks whilst employed by HP belongs to HP. >>> Do I remember explicitly what that code might include? NFW. >> >> Well, then let me be very clear: *All* the relevant code that Ian and >> I have written while being HP employees was contributed to the Croquet >> project. *All* the code contributed to the Croquet project by HP was >> approved by the OSS approval board inside HP to be contributed under >> the MIT license. > That is extremely interesting and good news. How about other people that > were at HP? Is there any chance of a copy of whatever documentation is > involved to show the SFLC lawyers? Is there any hope that Disney did the > same? I'm not sure what "other people" you are referring to. As for documentation, you should ask Kim since she probably has the email address of the lawyer we were working with handy (although I'm pretty sure you can find the OSS board and an email address with a Google search). For Disney, same answer - ask Kim, she is the contact point for inquiries regarding license etc. Cheers, - Andreas |
|
|
In reply to this post by timrowledge
mvdg asked a good question: what is the risk?
Risk to be sued by individual contributor? seems very low to me. Risk to be sued by major company? Not until you make money or prevent them to make money with a concurrent project. But then, seems higher. On the other side, attacking projects like OLPC seems dumb: it's like negative advertising! But who knows... Will the board really decide that every single wrong-licensed bit has to be rewritten? Wouldn't it be better that code having higher risk be rewritten first? I would bet code from individuals can well wait a few more years, anysuch trial in the database? Hope you asked lawyers to evaluate these risks. And that a clear strategy will emerge from this with clear priorities and estimation of effort kept reasonnable. Nicolas tim Rowledge a écrit : > > On 15-Jan-08, at 1:23 PM, Andreas Raab wrote: > >> tim Rowledge wrote: >>> On 15-Jan-08, at 12:39 PM, Michael van der Gulik wrote: >>>> Is it possible for Squeak to be considered an "Apache base with MIT >>>> extensions"? The base (Squeak 1.1 ) is obviously Apache licensed, >>>> and if you made a massive changeset of all changes since then, that >>>> changeset would be MIT licensed, >>> Nope, I don't think so. Aside from a number of people with changes in >>> there that haven't yet signed the relicensing paperwork, there are >>> large chunks that (probably) belong to Disney and HP. Bloody lawyers >>> and big corporations... >> >> HP? Can you point to any code that is in Squeak which you believe is >> owned by HP? > I'm guessing (and only guessing right now) that lawyers would tell us > that any code written by you folks whilst employed by HP belongs to HP. > Do I remember explicitly what that code might include? NFW. > > So far we (as in 'the board') are finding this relicensing stuff to be > staggeringly complicated and nitpicky. Every antecedent version of every > method in the image has to be covered. The 'sublicensing' clause in the > original SqL doesn't seem to impress the lawyers at all. > > tim > -- > tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim > granary - old folks home > > > > |
Re: License questions.
|
|
In reply to this post by Andreas.Raab
On Jan 16, 2008 11:31 AM, Andreas Raab <[hidden email]> wrote:
Has she been asked recently about the status of the Disney contributions? I'd like to ask her, but I don't want to annoy her by being the dozenth person today to ask. Gulik. -- http://people.squeakfoundation.org/person/mikevdg http://gulik.pbwiki.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by Andreas.Raab
Hi all-- Andreas writes: > As for documentation, you should ask Kim since she probably has the > email address of the lawyer we were working with handy (although I'm > pretty sure you can find the OSS board and an email address with a > Google search). For Disney, same answer - ask Kim, she is the contact > point for inquiries regarding license etc. Just FYI, I did this previously, and await an answer. -C -- Craig Latta improvisational musical informaticist www.netjam.org Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)] |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nicolas Cellier-3
Hi Nicolas-- > Hope you asked lawyers to evaluate these risks. We surely have. > And that a clear strategy will emerge from this with clear priorities > and estimation of effort kept reasonable. Indeed; like everyone else, we hope that will be the result. 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 Michael van der Gulik-2
Hi Michael-- > Could I get my understanding of the licensing situation verified > please. Sure (I'm coordinating licensing issues on behalf of the Squeak leadership, with the help of contributors, Viewpoints, the Software Freedom Conservancy and others). > Squeak 1.1 was originally released under the Squeak license. It has > since been relicensed under the Apache 2.0 license. All changes made > since Squeak 1.1 were originally under the Squeak license. Some contributors specified license terms, and some did not. Of those who did, some specified the Squeak license, and some did not. To remedy this, we're trying to get all contributors to agree to a single, simple set of license terms which can be sublicensed if necessary[MIT]. > All changes made by people who have signed the license agreement are > now under the MIT license. All changes made by people who have > /not/ signed the license agreement remain under the Squeak license. No, if a contributor has not specified license terms, then they have granted no license. > So, does this mean that all of Squeak, except the contributions by > people who haven't signed the license agreement, is now (as of Squeak > 3.10) released under the Apache 2.0 license? No; we have yet to make a new release which is clear about its license terms. Also note that the contributor agreement is between the contributor and Viewpoints. > Are class definitions and documentation changes also taken into > account when working out who the contributors are? Yes. > Were the changes made at Disney released under the Squeak license? > Does Disney own the changes made, or do the individual contributers > working for Disney own the changes? We await a strong legal opinion about this from either the authors or Disney (hopefully both). > Are the changes made at Disney now released under MIT? This is not clear yet, unfortunately. In particular, the identity of the copyright holder is not clear. > How do you work out what changes were made at Disney (in the case that > they are problematic)? One works them out with the timestamp and authorship information we have from the time. > Could I take a calculated risk and state that my work is hereby > release under the Apache 2.0 license... It really would be simpler if you signed and returned the contributor agreement[1] to Viewpoints. I am often available for discussion at the #squeak IRC channel on irc.freenode.net. thanks, -C [1] http://netjam.org/squeak/contributors -- Craig Latta improvisational musical informaticist www.netjam.org Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)] |
|
|
In reply to this post by Michael van der Gulik-2
Le mardi 15 janvier 2008 à 21:43 +1300, Michael van der Gulik a écrit : > > I'm asking this because I'm about to embark on some significant > changes to the classes in Kernel and Collections for my SecureSqueak > project. I want the end result of this work to be released under the > Apache 2.0 license, if possible. These changes are scoped to Kernel, > Collections and a handful of other classes. You should not worry about that. Just release your SecureSqueak -- Squeak VM + Squeak image encapsulated -- under the Apache 2.0 license. The SqL grant you this right. OLPC, Sophie, Croquet, ... people are doing that just fine. I am also doing that for my pet iStoa project. The Squeak license is more a community problem because the SqL is not acknowledge as a free software license by the free software community. Hilaire |
signature.asc (196 bytes)
Re: License questions.
|
|
On Jan 17, 2008 2:29 AM, Hilaire Fernandes <[hidden email]> wrote:
Is this really the case? According to the Squeak license: "You may distribute and sublicense such Modified Software only under the terms of a valid, binding license that makes no representations or warranties on behalf of Apple, and is no less protective of Apple and Apple's rights than this License." Is the Apache license no less protective of Apple? By my understanding, I can't sue Apple as the result of the Squeak license nor owe then more than US$50, and by accepting the license, I'm agreeing to indemnify and hold Apple harmless if anybody decides to sue them because of my work based on something derived under the Squeak license. The Squeak license also states that any changes I make, even to sublicensed versions, must also be made publicly available. What I want is to make a modified version of Squeak that someone could grab and relicense under a closed-source license for the purposes of making a load of money. I will probably follow your example, take the risk and boldly state that my work is released under the Apache license and keep a careful audit log of all changes made, by whom and under which license. Gulik. -- http://people.squeakfoundation.org/person/mikevdg http://gulik.pbwiki.com/ |
«
Return to Squeak - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |