Proposal for a Squeak migration meeting

On 6/26/06, Pavel Krivanek <[hidden email]> wrote:
> You don't expect that's possible to take bootstrapped 3.9 kernel image
> (http://www.squeaksource.com/KernelImage.html) and make it clean from
> the licensing perspective?  I don't think that it's more complicated
> than Spoon checking.
>
Well, Spoon's kernel image is so small, you can see all of it running
at once :). But I don't see either project precluding the other, in
fact.

How small is that 3.9 image, code wise?

Cees De Groot a écrit :
One of the proposal  (from Tim) -- to check with the laywer I guess --
was to relicensed all the SqL code under APLS2.0. If possible, it will
not be that paintfull to migrate from 3.9 and it will get use a ready to
use image. Of course it is not incompatible with the Spoon track.

I also proposed a semi automatic way to do that: any code copyright
owner not willing to see his code relicensed to APSL2.0 should say so
before a given dead line.

Hilaire

On 6/26/06, Hilaire Fernandes <[hidden email]> wrote:
> One of the proposal  (from Tim) -- to check with the laywer I guess --
> was to relicensed all the SqL code under APLS2.0. If possible, it will
> not be that paintfull to migrate from 3.9 and it will get use a ready to
> use image. Of course it is not incompatible with the Spoon track.
>
We are going to check that, but I think I can predict the answer :)

> I also proposed a semi automatic way to do that: any code copyright
> owner not willing to see his code relicensed to APSL2.0 should say so
> before a given dead line.
>
Same there - that's not the way it works, alas.

Only copyright holders have the right to license their works.
Implicitely or explicitely, they have licensed their work under the
SqueakL and the only thing that can change that is an explicit act on
their side.

The only escape hatch, which we can check with the laywer, is the "no
less protective" phrase, but I am not holding my breath. The APSL2.0
is less protective of apple's rights, and that apple chose to
re-license some old stuff with a less protective license doesn't have
any impact on the original licensing process, I think.

On 6/26/06, Cees De Groot <[hidden email]> wrote:
471 class mirrors now, the original image contains 2096 classes.
Version for Squeak 3.7 had  336 class mirrors.
It needs still radical cleanup - above all there are many unnecessary methods.

-- Pavel

On Jun 26, 2006, at 6:18 AM, Hilaire Fernandes wrote:

This sounds nice, but I'd like to have a lawyer OK it.  Here's a  
hypothetical situation: if Disney doesn't speak up before the date,  
and they later decide that they don't want "their" code licensed  
under APSL2.0, would the argument that they missed the deadline stand  
up against their lawyers in court?  Possibly, but not certainly;  
their lawyers are good at this stuff.  If we're going to bother with  
this license change, we want to do it once, and to have absolutely no  
question about its legality.

Josh


>
> Hilaire
>

On 6/26/06, Josh Gargus <[hidden email]> wrote:
> This sounds nice, but I'd like to have a lawyer OK it.  Here's a
> hypothetical situation: if Disney doesn't speak up before the date,
> and they later decide that they don't want "their" code licensed
> under APSL2.0, would the argument that they missed the deadline stand
> up against their lawyers in court?

My guess: it would stand up for roughly a handful of nanoseconds. Even
if you sent Disney a notification by registered letter, etcetera. And
with all the talk of letting the mouse sleep, I don't think anyone is
going to send Disney a letter :) (further question: who would send
this letter, anyway?)

Josh Gargus a écrit :
The main problem with post Squeak 1.1 code, is the code owned by Disney.
This one for sure we don't want to keep it.

So we are back to the main idea of the Squeak migration meeting: to
determine which classes need to be removed and rewritten.

A first step could be to determine which code is owned by Disney.
But of course this will be only possible if people of that time speak
up. But I am afraid the free software culture is something unknwown for
this people. I am sorry to be rude, but personnaly for my own software
development I really need Squeak to be part of the free software community.

So basicly, two options:
- people help to dermine to identify Disney copyrighted owned code. We
have a chance to do big clean up,

- people does not help to identify Disney copyrighted owned code. We go
directly the Spoon way and just forget and delete about all the
morph/etoys/etc. stuffs. Then we use other stuff as SqueakGTK+ effort to
  provide the UI. For sure, Squeak will be a much more
developer/business Smalltalk system that way. It all depends on us.

Sound crazy right?

Hilaire

For a long time now - I have no idea of the actual number of days/
months/years - the policy has been stated on SM that SqL is the only  
acceptable license for inclusion in base Squeak. Therefore I would  
claim that *every* bit of code submitted for a bugfix or base image  
extension is SqL since the author knows that it must be in order to  
be accepted.

As for Disney era code - well surely nobody thinks that Alan didn't  
thoroughly apprise Disney of the license conditions when negotiating  
the deal to work there? Likewise HP.

So I think it reasonable to claim that stuff in the base image is  
fairly safe. Further, if Apple have decided that some license is good  
enough for their purpose to replace the SqL then it seems that they  
consider this new license 'no less protective'.

tim
--
tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
Useful random insult:- Always responds to "Make Money Fast" postings  
on the Net.

tim Rowledge a écrit :
It is understandable and the problem is not there. The problem is about
relicensing SqL code owned by Disney.

Hilaire

Hilaire,

I have already run in to real problems with the license.  We have seen a
number of cases where either inclusion of Squeak or porting agreements with
other companies has been squashed by our license.  It should also be obvious
that Viewpoint considers this a real problem with Croquet or they would not
have spent the time and effort to have Apple change it.  

On a personal note my software development is also at risk, which is why
I've tried so hard to help with this issue, even if my pushing and prodding
has not been welcomed by everyone.  

When I read the license what I see is that it is free software and within my
own personal risk tolerance for development.  You could call it PR and argue
that there is no real license issue but if a customer sees it as above their
own Risk level this is not PR it is a real barrier to deployment.  If
someone says to me that you can port our code to squeak but not under your
license that's a real issue preventing collaboration.  Or when someone says
we want to contribute to Squeak development but we don't understand your
license model well enough to know if contributing to your work puts us at
risk, that's a real problem.

This issue is not an imaginary PR issue.  We have an opportunity to fix the
problem we need to take that opportunity.  My time working on this issue has
shown me two things: First, there are a number of people educated enough in
the issue and willing to help lead or work on this issue.  Second, there are
enough people that have tried and failed to fix this issue willing to step
out in front and say it's too complicated, not worth the effort, not
important and there is not enough time.  

My suggestion is that the foundation should lead this effort by opening up
this process and create a team of both elected foundation members and non
foundation members willing to help organize the process.  I would like to
see progress and the understanding that failure is not an option.  Whatever
the path, whatever the effort, no matter how long it takes, it will be over
the sooner we set off, let's move forward.

For with it is worth,

Ron Teitelbaum
President / Principal Software Engineer
US Medical Record Specialists
[hidden email]

On 6/26/06, tim Rowledge <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Further, if Apple have decided that some license is good
> enough for their purpose to replace the SqL then it seems that they
> consider this new license 'no less protective'.
>
Sorry, but I can't go with you there. Why would that be? In SqueakL,
Apple said that the general public (the licensee in a, well, general
public license) is not allowed to re-license Squeak under anything
that's less protective. Apple, however, is the licensor, not the
general public. They can do whatever they want. They could have sold
Squeak 1.1 lock, stock and barrel to Microsoft for mucho North
American Pesos (in fact, they still can).

Instead, they opted to put Squeak out under another license - which
happens to be less protective of Apple's rights, but this is a
completely parallel process from everything that happened with/under
SqueakL.

Disney, HP, Cees de Groot, and lots of others licensed their code
under SqueakL. Even that is probably not 100% sure because we haven't
really tracked copyrights and licenses for a long time, but in good
faith we can say that whoever worked in the Squeak community and saw
their code being incorporated, implicitely licensed their
contributions under SqueakL (there's a reason the FSF insists on
paperwork being done before you can contribute, you see...).

But to say, in good faith, that all these parties now implicitely
would accept a switch to APSL just because the original contributor
dual-licensed Squeak 1.1... I don't think that'll hold up.

On 26-Jun-06, at 11:29 AM, Cees De Groot wrote:

> On 6/26/06, tim Rowledge <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Further, if Apple have decided that some license is good
>> enough for their purpose to replace the SqL then it seems that they
>> consider this new license 'no less protective'.
>>
> Sorry, but I can't go with you there.
[snip]
Well, given all that you said (and accepting that it makes some  
sense), it's hard to imagine how we can do *anything* meaningful.  
Except a total restart from 1.1/Spoon and get everything imported  
after (onerous) paperwork from everyone that might plausibly be  
involved. Even then, what happens for the code from disney/hp/
interval/exobox/ibm/etc that was donated implicitly under SqL?


tim
--
tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
Strange OpCodes: IIB: Ignore Inquiry and Branch anyway

On 6/26/06, tim Rowledge <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Except a total restart from 1.1/Spoon and get everything imported
> after (onerous) paperwork from everyone that might plausibly be
> involved.

Yup. I fear that that's going to be the conclusion.

> Even then, what happens for the code from disney/hp/
> interval/exobox/ibm/etc that was donated implicitly under SqL?
>
Nothing. It stays available under Squeak-L. Unless the copyright
owners like to re-license under APSL or something else APSL-compatible
that's open source...

Hilaire

Oops, my previous message counted authorship in a 3.7u1 image.  Here
are the counts for 3.9 full the counts.  Congratulations to Andreas
for surpassing the "undated" entries.  :)


7420->''ar''
3809->''(undated)''
3452->''sw''
2231->''stephaneducasse''
2193->''yo''
2134->''dgd''
1947->''RAA''
1900->''di''
1774->''nk''
1685->''sd''
1344->''jm''
1291->''tk''
1018->''al''
975->''cwp''
959->''md''
894->''mir''
674->''gk''
662->''brp''
648->''len''
518->''ls''
505->''avi''
466->''sma''
425->''ab''
407->''dvf''
392->''NS''
350->''JMM''
348->''bf''
346->''ajh''
270->''hpt''
237->''sr''
225->''rr''
223->''wiz''
223->''lr''
184->''rw''
183->''tak''
164->''apb''
142->''tlk''
138->''asm''
138->''sps''
133->''rbb''
117->''raok''
100->''acg''
100->''th''
99->''jrp''
91->''BG''
88->''tpr''
88->''hmm''
87->''gm''
86->''laza''
84->''tao''
81->''dew''
80->''MPW''
80->''gh''
79->''fbs''
75->''tfei''
75->''dtl''
72->''hg''
64->''LC''
62->''nb''
58->''zz''
57->''mk''
57->''svp''
55->''dao''
51->''aoy''
50->''RAH''
46->''kfr''
46->''KLC''
45->''miki''
43->''sbw''
42->''SqR''
41->''KR''
39->''mu''
39->''mpw''
38->''reThink''
35->''fc''
34->''mdr''
33->''panda''
32->''efc''
30->''SD''
30->''jdr''
30->''jcg''
29->''jmv''
28->''bkv''
27->''TBn''
26->''JW''
25->''Tsutomu''
25->''JF''
25->''jf''
25->''em''
25->''jws''
25->''bolot''
23->''stp''
23->''mjr''
22->''CdG''
21->''bvs''
20->''DSM''
20->''sac''
20->''wod''
19->''nice''
19->''GL''
18->''djp''
18->''mx''
18->''RCS''
17->''rhi''
17->''JWS''
17->''st''
17->''ads''
17->''TAG''
16->''TPR''
16->''FBS''
16->''sumim''
16->''jdl''
15->''6/9/97''
15->''bp''
15->''hh''
14->''ikp''
14->''dwh''
14->''btr''
13->''mga''
12->''dc''
12->''ka''
12->''BP''
11->''pk''
11->''dd''
11->''jhm''
11->''rww''
11->''emm''
11->''raa''
10->''nop''
10->''TBP''
10->''DM''
10->''tween''
9->''jrm''
9->''abc''
9->''NDCC''
9->''jla''
9->''dns''
8->''pnm''
8->''mjg''
8->''AFi''
8->''ndCollectionsTests-Unordered''
8->''tb''
8->''PHK''
7->''jam''
7->''tbn''
7->''jmb''
7->''Noury''
7->''tetha''
7->''EP''
7->''spfa''
6->''nm''
6->''TN''
6->''pmm''
6->''YE''
6->''das''
5->''6/7/97''
5->''JMV''
5->''r++''
5->''ccn''
5->''edc''
4->''brp`''
4->''jlb''
4->''cmm''
4->''wb''
4->''''
4->''BJP''
4->''stephaneducassse''
4->''TRee''
3->''ac''
3->''wdc''
3->''sge''
3->''bh''
3->''ts''
3->''DF''
3->''6/5/97''
3->''jsp''
3->''jm
''
3->''go''
3->''apl''
3->''MAL''
3->''pnm
8/23/2000''
2->''MPH''
2->''hk''
2->''LEG''
2->''programmatic''
2->''dhhi''
2->''ward''
2->''sk''
2->''mas''
2->''MU''
2->''6/8/97''
2->''bmk''
2->''dvf
6/10/2000''
2->''rjf''
2->''aka''
2->''vb''
2->''ak''
2->''eat''
2->''efo''
2->''crl''
2->''cm''
2->''DSM
10/15/1999''
2->''ASF''
2->''es''
2->''6/6/97''
1->''Tbp''
1->''dls''
1->''mikki''
1->''6/10/97''
1->''de''
1->''6/18/97''
1->''KTT''
1->''ykoubo''
1->''AB''
1->''los''
1->''RvL''
1->''vj''
1->''jj''
1->''tk

11/26/2004''
1->''PH''
1->''edt''
1->''T2''
1->''sn''
1->''LB''
1->''ssa''
1->''tk
9/13/97''
1->''rop''
1->''rlf''
1->''cbc''
1->''TJ''
1->''cds''
1->''mist''
1->''RJ''
1->''rca''
1->''pm''
1->''EW''
1->''mrm''
1->''huma''
1->''tk

11/29/2004''
1->''drs''
1->''je''
1->''HilaireFernandes''
1->''m''
1->''to''
1->''ich.''
1->''MM''
1->''ag''
1->''Rik''
1->''jwh''
1->''HK''
1->''6/13/97''
1->''fcs''
1->''mkd''
1->''rpj''
1->''RB''
1->''mw''
'


-Lex

Might I suggest you first toss all methods where the method is the  
same as the original method from Apple?
I'm not sure if you should look at text content, the method might be  
reformat, perhaps looking at the bytecodes might be
more meaningful, assuming a formatting change or comment is not  
applicable for licensing issues?

On 27-Jun-06, at 10:04 AM, Lex Spoon wrote:

> JMM

--
========================================================================
===
John M. McIntosh <[hidden email]> 1-800-477-2659
Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd.  http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com
========================================================================
===

These numbers are not reliable. If you want more accurate numbers use
3.8 - 3.9 severely suffers from the underscore to colon-equals
conversion which wrecked havoc on the author initials in the affected
packages.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

Lex Spoon wrote:

Hi!

Lex Spoon <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Oops, my previous message counted authorship in a 3.7u1 image.  Here
> are the counts for 3.9 full the counts.  Congratulations to Andreas
> for surpassing the "undated" entries.  :)
>
>
> 7420->''ar''

And if you want to see more info:

        (SMSqueakMap default accountForUsername: 'ar') nameAndEmail

regards, Göran

On 27 Jun 2006 19:04:27 +0200, Lex Spoon <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Oops, my previous message counted authorship in a 3.7u1 image.  Here
> are the counts for 3.9 full the counts.  Congratulations to Andreas
> for surpassing the "undated" entries.  :)
>
It's an interesting list, but legally doesn't say a lot I think. The
problem of course is that when you're employed (as a programmer), the
default assumption is that the property rights of any code you write
belongs with the employer
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire). And as you don't know
whether code was or wasn't written during evening hours, to be on the
safe side one would need to have a statement by the employer either to
the effect that the license change is ok or that the work is not
regarded as being the property of the employer (for an example, see
the boilerplate text attached to the GPL -
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html#SEC4).

For example, while Squeak Central has always stated that they were
careful to separate proprietary code from public code during their
stint at Disney, it was never stated that Disney was not the owner of
the public code. So we have to assume they are, which means that for
any of the work done by any SqC member during that time we'd need a
license grant under the APSL from Disney, not the person who has
his/her initials on the code.

Regards,

Cees

"Cees De Groot" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> For example, while Squeak Central has always stated that they were
> careful to separate proprietary code from public code during their
> stint at Disney, it was never stated that Disney was not the owner of
> the public code. So we have to assume they are, which means that for
> any of the work done by any SqC member during that time we'd need a
> license grant under the APSL from Disney, not the person who has
> his/her initials on the code.

Which brings us back to my post which (oddly I thought) went more or
less totally uncommented:

        http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2006-June/105229
.html

Was it too long to read? :)

regards, Göran