Proposal for a Squeak migration meeting

>
> On 20-Jun-06, at 1:36 AM, Hilaire Fernandes wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> May be we could refocus on the subject of the thread, then think
>> about the details later.
>>
>> So far only Marcus wrote he will participate to such a meeting.  Graid
>> said he would like but he cannot.
>> I am curious to know what think the other.
>
> Sadly there's no chance I could join the meeting; time and money
> preclude it. To those that can make it I can only offer support from
> the sidelines along with the statement that any bit of code I've ever
> submitted can be considered to be under any license that is plausible
> for Squeak.

>
> On 20-Jun-06, at 12:25 PM, Hilaire Fernandes wrote:
>
>>
>> Tim you are pointing a very important point. After the announce of the
>> change to APSL2.0 of Squeak1.1, we have to ask ourself which part of
>> {Squeak3.8}\{Squeak1.1} can be relicensed and probably much more
>> important which part cannot be relicensed.
>
>
> I very much doubt that there are any parts that cannot be relicensed,  
> if in fact it is even really neccesary. What would be wrong with  taking
> the position that the original squeak license (which is quite  
> adequately free in my opinion) has been rescinded and replaced by the  
> APSL? I think that would be compatible with the SqL clause about  

> relicensing so long as it is no less protective of Apple,  since  after
> all they have chosen this new license. Surely *any* code  released under
> SqL can be declared as relicensed?
>
>> And of course we have to considerer in one hand the VM part and in the
>> other hand the Image part.
>
> I think we've pretty much always taken the approach that code offered  
> for VM inclusion is SqL and that it becomes community property. I  
> believe that anyone that offers a community some code for inclusion  
> into a community project is implicity donating that code in its  
> entirety. If they're not.. well they can just bugger off.
>
> I truly can't understand this constant complaint about licensing. At  
> one level it's a particularly obnoxious form of pseudo-intellectual  

>>
>> Tim you are pointing a very important point. After the announce of  
>> the
>> change to APSL2.0 of Squeak1.1, we have to ask ourself which part of
>> {Squeak3.8}\{Squeak1.1} can be relicensed and probably much more
>> important which part cannot be relicensed.
>
> I very much doubt that there are any parts that cannot be  
> relicensed, if in fact it is even really neccesary. What would be  
> wrong with taking the position that the original squeak license  
> (which is quite adequately free in my opinion) has been rescinded  
> and replaced by the APSL? I think that would be compatible with the  
> SqL clause about relicensing so long as it is no less protective of  
> Apple,  since after all they have chosen this new license. Surely  
> *any* code released under SqL can be declared as relicensed?

> I think we've pretty much always taken the approach that code  
> offered for VM inclusion is SqL and that it becomes community  
> property. I believe that anyone that offers a community some code  
> for inclusion into a community project is implicity donating that  
> code in its entirety. If they're not.. well they can just bugger off.
>
> I truly can't understand this constant complaint about licensing.  
> At one level it's a particularly obnoxious form of pseudo-
> intellectual masturbation since most of the complainers are not  
> even faintly qualified to offer real opinions and at another level  
> it's pretty much completely irrelevant. These so-called 'free  
> licenses' are legally untested, rarely take any consideration of  
> differing national boundaries and legal systems and generally smack  
> of smackhead barrackroom lawyering. Five sizable companies I could  
> name have had no problem with using Squeak under the baleful glare  
> of the SqL.

> [snip]blah-blah
>
> I should add that there was no intent to blame Hilaire for any of  
> the problem.
>
>
> tim
> --
> tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
> Oxymorons: Good grief
>
>
>

>>>
>>> Tim you are pointing a very important point. After the announce of  the
>>> change to APSL2.0 of Squeak1.1, we have to ask ourself which part of
>>> {Squeak3.8}\{Squeak1.1} can be relicensed and probably much more
>>> important which part cannot be relicensed.
>>
>>
>> I very much doubt that there are any parts that cannot be  relicensed,
>> if in fact it is even really neccesary. What would be  wrong with
>> taking the position that the original squeak license  (which is quite
>> adequately free in my opinion) has been rescinded  and replaced by the
>> APSL? I think that would be compatible with the  SqL clause about
>> relicensing so long as it is no less protective of  Apple,  since
>> after all they have chosen this new license. Surely  *any* code
>> released under SqL can be declared as relicensed?
>
>
> you see tim this what I would like to know from the laywer we  contacted
> ( do not remember his name).

>
> Hi Hilaire--
>
>> Did you get any feedback from the laywer?
>> How can we make progress regarding this proposal?
>
>     The Squeak Foundation board now meets via instant messaging on first
> and third Wednesdays. At the 5 July meeting, we'll have our pro-bono
> legal counsel, Dan Ravicher of the Software Freedom Law Center, as a
> special guest. Hopefully we'll have some new useful info after that.

>
> On 14.06.2006, at 17:44, Hilaire Fernandes wrote:
>
>>
>> I am proposing for 4 or 5 days meeting, taking place after the   daily
>> conferences. The meeting could last for two hours, 17:00-19:00.
>>
>> As a matter of facts, which experts are ready to join such a meeting?
>>
>
> I would be interested.

> On 6/24/06, Hilaire Fernandes <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Other people attending the meeting have shown absolutely *NO INTEREST*
>> in the matter, it is sad :(
>
>
> I don't know. It might also be an indicator that the licensing
> "issues" are largely just perceived, or deemed to be PR stuff, or
> whatever. But not a real actual stumbling block to actual Squeak
> practicioners.

> From: Cees De Groot
> Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 7:01 AM
>
> On 6/24/06, Hilaire Fernandes <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Other people attending the meeting have shown absolutely *NO INTEREST*
> > in the matter, it is sad :(
>
> I don't know. It might also be an indicator that the licensing
> "issues" are largely just perceived, or deemed to be PR stuff, or
> whatever. But not a real actual stumbling block to actual Squeak
> practicioners.
>

>
>
> Cees De Groot a �mcrit :
> > On 6/24/06, Hilaire Fernandes <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Other people attending the meeting have shown absolutely *NO INTEREST*
> >> in the matter, it is sad :(
> >
> >
> > I don't know. It might also be an indicator that the licensing
> > "issues" are largely just perceived, or deemed to be PR stuff, or
> > whatever. But not a real actual stumbling block to actual Squeak
> > practicioners.
>
> I totally agree with you. The licensing "issues" does not prevent Squeak
> to be a free software, it is just preventing Squeak to enter mainstream
> in the free software community.
>
> Hilaire

>
> Ron Teitelbaum
>
>
>>From: Cees De Groot
>>Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 7:01 AM
>>
>>On 6/24/06, Hilaire Fernandes <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>>Other people attending the meeting have shown absolutely *NO INTEREST*
>>>in the matter, it is sad :(
>>
>>I don't know. It might also be an indicator that the licensing
>>"issues" are largely just perceived, or deemed to be PR stuff, or
>>whatever. But not a real actual stumbling block to actual Squeak
>>practicioners.
>>
>
>
>

> On Sun, Jun 25, 2006 at 01:23:26PM +0200, Hilaire Fernandes wrote:
>
>>
>>Cees De Groot a crit :
>>
>>>On 6/24/06, Hilaire Fernandes <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Other people attending the meeting have shown absolutely *NO INTEREST*
>>>>in the matter, it is sad :(
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't know. It might also be an indicator that the licensing
>>>"issues" are largely just perceived, or deemed to be PR stuff, or
>>>whatever. But not a real actual stumbling block to actual Squeak
>>>practicioners.
>>
>>I totally agree with you. The licensing "issues" does not prevent Squeak
>>to be a free software, it is just preventing Squeak to enter mainstream
>>in the free software community.
>>
>>Hilaire
>
>
> +1
>
> I have been pushing Dr. Geo I into junior and senior high schools
> here in Taiwan. It was such a pleasure to know that Hilaire is
> releasing Dr. Geo II using LGPL. But for the moment I have to hold
> back the push for Dr. Geo II because it is built with Squeak,
> whose license issue is just about to be resolved yet. As Hilaire
> has frequently urged me to try, there must be a lot more other very
> interesting and useful tools in education built with Squeak just
> like Dr. Geo II.
>
> Personally I wouldn't care the "small license bug" (as Hilaire calls
> it) when I demonstrate things to my nieces and nephews. When it comes
> to promoting the software publicly, it is totally different. As a
> long time FS advocate who have made peripheral contributions such
> as the "Software Category Drawing" on the gnu site, I would constantly
> get into defensive position about the license issue if I were to
> promote software with this license bug. The worst part is that the
> defense would be against the FS community, the force that built my
> reputation and strength. Political thinking? Yes, but practical
> nontheless. You chose to pursue Squeak because of practical
> considerations (in the technical sense) , and I chose not to because
> of the very same reason (in the political sense).
>
> With high respect to the squeak community I plead your attention to
> the license issue. Now that the old version becomes free, I personally
> believe that it is only a matter of time that the entire thing becomes
> free and that major distributions start packaging this nice software
> in a few years. I will be glad to help rewrite some less important
> components whose authors can no longer be contacted for a change of
> license, and release it as LGPL or less retrictive license as the
> squeak community sees appropriate. (Good at geometry/algorithms/regexp,
> OK at OOP and many languages, no smalltalk experience.) When the
> license issue is comfortably resolved, I will then go back to the
> political arena and start a major push here in Taiwan ;-) BTW I
> believe there are many FS advocates around the world who hold more
> or less similar attitude. It would be beneficial to the squeak
> community and to the world at large if the squeak community announces
> the decision to move towards a "bug-free" license and call for
> participation to accelarate the transition.
>
> Best Regards,
>

> As Craig said, we (SqF Board) are going to discuss various approaches
> with Dan Ravicher July 5th. We'll have a more informed idea of what is
> possible after that conversation, I hope. However, at the moment I
> think there are two realistic approaches:
> - Take Squeak 1.1 and declare that the new main line of development;
> - Do a license check on the Spoon code and declare that the new main
> line of development.
> In both cases, we'd start with a "deficient" Squeak and work upwards.
> The third option, sort out the mess that's 3.9 (licensing-wise), seems
> to be not very viable. It's a lot of work to start with, and the
> outcomes are unsure.