Re: [Unicode] Class Unicode --> data from unicode.org

Gnu-Smalltalk also has the classes

UnicodeCharacter
UnicodeString

which I'm having a good look at.

On 7 December 2015 at 08:52, H. Hirzel <[hidden email]> wrote:
> there is a class 'Unicode' both in Squeak and Pharo.
>
> http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/6225
>
> It surely needs attention as it loads the data from www.unicode.org to
> initialize the Unicode knowhow of Squeak / Pharo.

Please take a look at the issues around licencing, where GNU Smalltalk
is concerned: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2008-January/123761.html

I'd suggest talking to Paolo Bonzini before continuing.

frank

On 7 December 2015 at 11:22, EuanM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thanks for the heads up - I'll be sure o stay out of their code and
only work with Gnu0-Smalltalk to the extent that we can polyfilla over
them.

I'll contact Paolo, although his last statement pointed to:
http://smalltalk.gnu.org/faq/32

"Does copyright restrict the use of GNU Smalltalk?
By Paolo Bonzini - Posted on June 20th, 2007

It does, but in general you don't need to worry much about the
licensing of your Smalltalk programs.

The class library is licensed under the GNU LGPL. Thus, it permits
using the library together with non-free programs.

The virtual machine and the bindings to external libraries are
licensed under the GNU GPL, with a special exception that allows
Smalltalk programs to be linked with the functions exported by the
virtual machine and said bindings."

and "whatever happens Smalltalk programs are clear and only covered by the GPL."
(http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2008-January/123790.html)

The LGPL states "You may convey a Combined Work [i.e. a work
containing both LGPL'd source code and non-LGPL's source code] under
***terms of your choice*** that, taken together, effectively do not
restrict modification of the portions of the [LGPL'd code] contained
in the Combined Work".

If we use LGPL'd Smalltalk from Gnu-Smalltalk, we may not close the
LGPL'd portion of the code.

Was anyone planning on closing the Unicode parts of Cuis/Pharo/Squeak?

It *is* an issue with Dolphin's .exe facility, which is one of my own
personal use-cases.  But for Pharo/Squeak/Cuis it seems to be a
non-issue.  If anyone has concrete evidence to the contrary, please
raise it now.


(IANAL but I can read contracts and do risk management of legal
issues).  If anyone continues to have long-term concerns, let me know.
I can get some qualified legal opinions.  Tbh, very little of my work
is done in the USA's legal jurisdiction.  My own risk is low.




On 7 December 2015 at 11:31, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 07-12-15 13:24, EuanM wrote:
> The class library is licensed under the GNU LGPL. Thus, it permits
> using the library together with non-free programs.

The incompatibility of LGPL with the kind of binding we do in
Smalltalk is a well known issue to the FSF. There is no known solution yet.

Stephan

Excerpts from EuanM's message of 2015-12-07 13:24:49 +0100:
> If we use LGPL'd Smalltalk from Gnu-Smalltalk, we may not close the
> LGPL'd portion of the code.
>
> Was anyone planning on closing the Unicode parts of Cuis/Pharo/Squeak?
>
> It *is* an issue with Dolphin's .exe facility, which is one of my own
> personal use-cases.  But for Pharo/Squeak/Cuis it seems to be a
> non-issue.  If anyone has concrete evidence to the contrary, please
> raise it now.

i say this as a strong proponent of the GNU GPL, and while i personally would
not mind switch licenses, i do not believe that this is something anyone else
would want.

so the reason you can't use GNU-smalltalk code is because pharo and squeak
should remain under the MIT license.

if you are creating an add-on package then the license is a non-issue, but if
you want the package to become part of the core, then it must be licensed under
the MIT license.

in other words, sure it is legal to combine MIT and LGPL code, what is not
legal is relicensing LGPL code as MIT unless you are the author. and that is
what the warning is about. by reading the LGPL code of gnu-smalltalk you risk
accidentally copying it.

adding LGPL code to the core thus would effectively change the license, and as
i said, i don't think anyone wants that.

randal schwartz suggests a cleanroom approach, though i personally think that
is overkill. if a cleanroom approach were really necessary than i would never
be allowed to switch jobs because once i have been working on one companys
private code i would be tainted for life, as i could accidentally reproduce the
same code in my next job.

however, either you get the GNU-smalltalk authors to relicense their unicode
classes under the MIT license, or they will need to be rewritten from scratch.

i would suggest asking them in the name of having a common code-base for all
smalltalks.

greetings, martin.

--
eKita                   -   the online platform for your entire academic life
--
chief engineer                                                       eKita.co
pike programmer      pike.lysator.liu.se    caudium.net     societyserver.org
secretary                                                      beijinglug.org
mentor                                                           fossasia.org
foresight developer  foresightlinux.org                            realss.com
unix sysadmin
Martin Bähr          working in china        http://societyserver.org/mbaehr/

On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 11:17 PM, Martin Bähr
<[hidden email]> wrote:
I read in that thread that contributions to the GNU Smalltalk must
have copyright assigned to FSF.  So the FSF could be asked to
relicense those classes as MIT.  You would have to see the text of the
assignment clause to know whether the original authors (if you can
track them in the code history) can directly relicense it MIT.

Now if a MIT licensed unicode library arises that is used by many
Smalltalks, GNU Smalltalk might feel inclined to incorporate it
downstream under their own license.  One reason to argue that MIT is
more free than GPL/LGPL, though the latter has the alternate advantage
of enforced reciprocity.

cheers -ben

> i would suggest asking them in the name of having a common code-base for all
> smalltalks.
>
> greetings, martin.

Excerpts from Martin Bähr's message of 2015-12-07 16:17:28 +0100:
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2008-January/123817.html
is worth reading in that context:

  So it's mainly an issue of being willing to cooperate.  I think all GNU
  Smalltalk people (almost all?) are and it's also true at least for some
  Squeak people.  If somebody took a package (several thousands lines of
  code, etc.) wholesale, ported it to Squeak, and licensed it under MIT on
  SqueakMap that would be copyright violation.  But everything can be done
  "cum grano salis".  Nobody is going to sue you if you copy an interface
  from GNU Smalltalk, reimplement in Squeak (for fun!), but you did look
  at the method comments in GNU Smalltalk -- and OMG maybe you got a
  glimpse of the source code just below!  Copyright does not protect
  having similar implementations.

  I think we're all for interoperability and for exchange of opinions
  within the communities.

so there you have the open invitation to go and ask...

and read this
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2008-January/123838.html
for a good summary on the issue.

greetings, martin.

--
eKita                   -   the online platform for your entire academic life
--
chief engineer                                                       eKita.co
pike programmer      pike.lysator.liu.se    caudium.net     societyserver.org
secretary                                                      beijinglug.org
mentor                                                           fossasia.org
foresight developer  foresightlinux.org                            realss.com
unix sysadmin
Martin Bähr          working in china        http://societyserver.org/mbaehr/

As the issue is about potential reuse of GNU Smalltalk code snippets /
classes regarding Unicode the most straightforward thing is to ask
Paolo Bonzini (http://smalltalk.gnu.org/blog/bonzinip) if he permits
the reuse under an MIT license.

So far no code has been identified which would be needed under an MIT license.

HTH
Hannes

On 12/7/15, Martin Bähr <[hidden email]> wrote:

Yes, clean room approaches are overkill.

Obviousness in code has long been found to be a protection against copyright.

For instance, you cannot copyright a programme in BASIC that says
10 Print "Hello World"
20 GOTO 10

(And by copyright, I mean prevent anyone else in the world from typing
that programme and distributing their copy).

One of the great advantage of writing weird, convoluted or just plain
dense clever code is that it becomes non-obvious and therefore
indubitably covered under copyright.

The mere fact that code has been written somewhere, does *not* make it
unusable elsewhere.

(As an aside, I tend to write plain, straightforward code.  Asserting
copyright on a lot of it would be hard).

One of the great advantages of not doing my coding in the USA is that
Stallman would have to come after me in my jurisdiction, not his.
Probably a special case of security through obscurity.

Usual disclaimer.  IANAL.  Just interested in these issues from having
developed legal support systems (including litigation support
systems).

As Hannes says, we haven't hit an area of the project where it is an issue yet.

But personally, I'm quite relaxed about looking at the Gnu Smalltalk
codebase.  I'm pretty certain I can re-implement without violating
copyright.  In the same way I can précis and paraphrase a short story
without violating the copyright of the short story. Can any of you
tell me the story of Hansel and Gretel without violating the copyright
of some recently published re-telling of the tale?  I'm pretty certain
you could.

Please remember that it is much easier to avoid copyright violation
than it is to avoid patent violation, in these sorts of cases.

None of the Gnu Smalltalk base is patented.

Cheers,
  Euan
(back to reading the ICU)


On 7 December 2015 at 16:06, Martin Bähr
<[hidden email]> wrote: