Meeting Report for 4/21/2010

> http://squeakboard.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/meeting-report-for-4212010/
>
>  Last week we decided to do notes in a round-robin manner, so Bert is
> writing the report this time. Everyone except Randal was present
> (Andreas, Bert, Chris, Craig, Jecel, Juan).
>
> First we had some virtual champagne over the 4.1 release. Yay! Might
> need a little more publicizing though.
>
> Joining the SFC is still a top-priority. We received a current draft
> of the agreement. We are putting it up here [1], please have a look
> if you are interested.
>
> We spent some time discussing the new interest in documentation,
> which we are very excited about. To give this the proper visibility,
> we think it should be made part of the release, and also be linked
> directly from squeak.org. To arrive at a plan of action swifter than
> by week-long mailing list discussions, we suggest that the interested
> folks meet on IRC soon.
>
> Jecel pointed out that on the project list [2], there were few
> commercial applications listed done in Squeak. That might give the
> impression that the community was somehow opposed to commercial use,
> which couldn’t be further from the truth. So let’s add some
> commercial examples there (and if there are too many, make another
> page). Please send in links with a short description!
>
> Finally we want to thank Ian Trudel for taking the initiative with
> surveying [3] the community. We support the initiative, and are eager
> to see the results so we can take them into account in our future
> work.
>
> And remember, anyone subscribed to squeak-dev can now contact the
> Board directly at [hidden email] thanks to magic pixy dust
> sprinkled by Ken on every one of you!
>
> [1]
> http://ftp.squeak.org/docs/squeak-sponsorship-agreement-apr19.pdf [2]
> http://www.squeak.org/Projects/ [3]
> http://lists.squeak.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2010-April/149047.html
>
> - Bert - (for the SOBs)
>
>

>
> Hi Bert, did you mean to repost last weeks mtg notes?
>
> -D
>
> On 26/04/10 22:12, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>> http://squeakboard.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/meeting-report-for-4212010/
>>
>> Last week we decided to do notes in a round-robin manner, so Bert is
>> writing the report this time. Everyone except Randal was present
>> (Andreas, Bert, Chris, Craig, Jecel, Juan).
>>
>> First we had some virtual champagne over the 4.1 release. Yay! Might
>> need a little more publicizing though.
>>
>> Joining the SFC is still a top-priority. We received a current draft
>> of the agreement. We are putting it up here [1], please have a look
>> if you are interested.
>>
>> We spent some time discussing the new interest in documentation,
>> which we are very excited about. To give this the proper visibility,
>> we think it should be made part of the release, and also be linked
>> directly from squeak.org. To arrive at a plan of action swifter than
>> by week-long mailing list discussions, we suggest that the interested
>> folks meet on IRC soon.
>>
>> Jecel pointed out that on the project list [2], there were few
>> commercial applications listed done in Squeak. That might give the
>> impression that the community was somehow opposed to commercial use,
>> which couldn’t be further from the truth. So let’s add some
>> commercial examples there (and if there are too many, make another
>> page). Please send in links with a short description!
>>
>> Finally we want to thank Ian Trudel for taking the initiative with
>> surveying [3] the community. We support the initiative, and are eager
>> to see the results so we can take them into account in our future
>> work.
>>
>> And remember, anyone subscribed to squeak-dev can now contact the
>> Board directly at [hidden email] thanks to magic pixy dust
>> sprinkled by Ken on every one of you!
>>
>> [1]
>> http://ftp.squeak.org/docs/squeak-sponsorship-agreement-apr19.pdf [2]
>> http://www.squeak.org/Projects/ [3]
>> http://lists.squeak.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2010-April/149047.html
>>
>> - Bert - (for the SOBs)
>>
>>
>
>

> Yes. The Squeak Oversight Board meets twice a month. I had not posted these notes here yet because I was waiting on [1] to be uploaded.
>
> - Bert -
>
> On 27.04.2010, at 00:25, Derek O'Connell wrote:
>>
>> Hi Bert, did you mean to repost last weeks mtg notes?
>>
>> -D
>>
>> On 26/04/10 22:12, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>>> http://squeakboard.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/meeting-report-for-4212010/
>>>
>>> Last week we decided to do notes in a round-robin manner, so Bert is
>>> writing the report this time. Everyone except Randal was present
>>> (Andreas, Bert, Chris, Craig, Jecel, Juan).
>>>
>>> First we had some virtual champagne over the 4.1 release. Yay! Might
>>> need a little more publicizing though.
>>>
>>> Joining the SFC is still a top-priority. We received a current draft
>>> of the agreement. We are putting it up here [1], please have a look
>>> if you are interested.
>>>
>>> We spent some time discussing the new interest in documentation,
>>> which we are very excited about. To give this the proper visibility,
>>> we think it should be made part of the release, and also be linked
>>> directly from squeak.org. To arrive at a plan of action swifter than
>>> by week-long mailing list discussions, we suggest that the interested
>>> folks meet on IRC soon.
>>>
>>> Jecel pointed out that on the project list [2], there were few
>>> commercial applications listed done in Squeak. That might give the
>>> impression that the community was somehow opposed to commercial use,
>>> which couldn’t be further from the truth. So let’s add some
>>> commercial examples there (and if there are too many, make another
>>> page). Please send in links with a short description!
>>>
>>> Finally we want to thank Ian Trudel for taking the initiative with
>>> surveying [3] the community. We support the initiative, and are eager
>>> to see the results so we can take them into account in our future
>>> work.
>>>
>>> And remember, anyone subscribed to squeak-dev can now contact the
>>> Board directly at [hidden email] thanks to magic pixy dust
>>> sprinkled by Ken on every one of you!
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> http://ftp.squeak.org/docs/squeak-sponsorship-agreement-apr19.pdf [2]
>>> http://www.squeak.org/Projects/ [3]
>>> http://lists.squeak.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2010-April/149047.html
>>>
>>> - Bert - (for the SOBs)
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

>
> Well since you asked.
>
> A. The purpose of the Project is to produce and distribute software that can be freely copied, modified and redistributed by the general public (“Free Software”).
>
> is that replacing the
>
> MIT License
>
> Copyright (c) The individual, corporate, and institutional contributors who have collectively contributed elements to this software ("The Squeak Community"), 1996-2010 All rights reserved.
>
> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
>
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
>
> THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN
> THE SOFTWARE.
> --------------------------------
>
> Or am I just confused by not assuming that:
> "and be freely copied, modified and redistributed by the general public"
> is the same as the MIT license?

>
>
> On 2010-05-04, at 3:54 PM, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>>> ?
>>
>> It's intended to mean the same, yes. Where do you see a difference?
>>
>> - Bert -
>
> One is called (“Free Software”) the other is called ("MIT License")