Reimplementing WeakKeyDictionary

On 19-Mar-07, at 10:52 AM, karl wrote:


>
> So it should be enough to have one license in the image ?

I'd say a reference to the license in the image, a copy of it in the  
sources file (hell it can be a class comment, that would  put it in  
both places), and a page on squeak.org as well.

Contributions must be offered within the scope of the license and I  
imagine we'd have to ask any new contributors to sign & mail the same  
agreement most of us already have sent in.

What about VM & plugin code? Does that have to be the same licence? I  
think it ought to be but maybe there is something more appropriate.

tim
--
tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
A computer scientist is someone who fixes things that aren't broken.

All,

I thought this was already figured out.  Viewpoints is collecting a
distribution agreement from all authors of squeak code.  Once that is done
Squeak will be re-licensed under MIT.  

Do these distribution agreements allow VPRI to distribute Squeak without a
copy of the license that includes the names of all authors, or does MIT
require that all authors be listed?

If this has not been figured out then we really need to settle this issue
now before Viewpoints finishes.  Does the agreement we signed for VPRI allow
the transfer of distribution rights to SqF?  Or does SqF need to take the
MIT version and then get new distributions agreements for all new
contributions in order to be able to distribute the next version of Squeak
under MIT?  Is VPRI planning to continue supporting our record keeping needs
with regards to licensing in which case the official distribution of Squeak
will come from them instead of SqF?

Can we make this the number one priority of the new SqueakFoundation board?
We should be getting and following real legal advice not guessing and if
something needs to be put in place to accept new contributions then that
should be done now.  This is defiantly one of those places where a simple
defined policy can save a huge amount of work later.

Ron Teitelbaum
President / Principal Software Engineer
US Medical Record Specialists  

karl schrieb:
> Well it says:
> 'The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included
> in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.'
>
> So it should be enough to have one license in the image ?

Not sure. You certainly need to include the individual copyright
notices (*), just including one copy of the permission should be
enough.

> Maybe all packages/modules should be dependent on a License module ?
> Patches and bugfixes, I don't know, depends on how substantial they are ?
>
> Licenses are a source of endless discussions :-)

I read the book of Larry Rosen, and his opinion is that software
engineers should stick to software. Licenses is the field of
lawyers. So if in doubt, ask the foundation's lawyer, and he
will tell you what to do (although you may need to learn how to
ask a lawyer first :-)

Regards,
Martin

(*) E.g.
Copyright (c) 2007 Martin v. Löwis
in the patch that triggered this discussion.

Hi Ron--

> I thought this was already figured out.

     Yes, that's right.

> Viewpoints is collecting a distribution agreement from all authors of
> squeak code. Once that is done Squeak will be re-licensed under MIT.

     That's correct.

> Do these distribution agreements allow VPRI to distribute Squeak
> without a copy of the license that includes the names of all authors,
> or does MIT require that all authors be listed?

     Under the agreement[1], the contributor grants Viewpoints a license
to distribute contributor's software, subject to the MIT license (which
is cited specifically by its location at the Open Source Initiative
website[2]). The text of the MIT license on that site is as follows:

***

Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>

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.

***

     Note that "Software" is defined as "software and associated
documentation files". It will suffice to have a licensing file, along
with the snapshot and virtual machine files, that has those notices in it.

> Does the agreement we signed for VPRI allow the transfer of
> distribution rights to SqF?

     The MIT license clearly grants that permission to anyone who
obtains the Software ("the right to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
distribute, sublicense, and/or sell").

> Is VPRI planning to continue supporting our record keeping needs
> with regards to licensing...

     From my correspondence with Viewpoints' representative in this
matter, Kim Rose, it's my understanding that they do.

> ...in which case the official distribution of Squeak will come from
> them instead of SqF?

     Given the extremely fluid transitive granting of permission
afforded by the MIT license, this need not be the case. If you'd like a
declaration from Viewpoints that what the Squeak Foundation releases is
"official", I'd be happy to ask for one.

> Can we make this the number one priority of the new SqueakFoundation
> board?

     As far as I'm concerned, this has been the first priority of the
Squeak Foundation board since I joined it. Of course, progress on this
issue requires the cooperation of people outside the board, so it can
seem excruciatingly slow at times. Please bear with us.

> We should be getting and following real legal advice not guessing...

     That's what we're doing. I'm in contact with Viewpoints' legal
counsel, via Kim Rose, and with counsel at the Software Freedom Law Center.

> ...and if something needs to be put in place to accept new
> contributions then that should be done now.

     Yes, that's what we're doing.

> This is definitely one of those places where a simple defined policy
> can save a huge amount of work later.

     Yes indeed.


     I hope this was clear.


     thanks,

-C

[1] http://netjam.org/squeak/SqueakDistributionAgreement.pdf
[2] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php

--
Craig Latta
improvisational musical informaticist
www.netjam.org
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]

> Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>
>
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included
> in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

So in this license agreement, what <year> and <copyright holders> will
be listed?

Regards,
Martin

Hi Martin--

> ...what <year> and <copyright holders> will be listed?

     The <year> field will be a list of every year in which accepted
contributions were created. The <copyright holders> field will be a list
of all the contributors who wrote an accepted contribution made
available via [1].


     thanks again,

-C

[1] http://netjam.org/squeak/SqueakDistributionAgreement.pdf

--
Craig Latta
improvisational musical informaticist
www.netjam.org
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]

Hello, all -

Just to say I am traveling today/tomorrow.  Will
be back in office and will discuss with Yoshiki
at that time to understand what action, if any,
is necessary on VPRI's behalf.

It was my understanding, after we had completed
the process of transfer to the MIT-license, VPRI
would stop tracking code contributions to the
Squeak code base.

More to come, if necessary upon my return.
cheers,
Kim


At 9:38 PM +0100 3/19/07, Martin v. Löwis wrote:

     Kim Rose writes:

> It was my understanding, after we had completed the process of
> transfer to the MIT-license, VPRI would stop tracking code
> contributions to the Squeak code base.

     I understand; the Squeak Foundation will be happy to continue that
task.


     thanks all,

-C

--
Craig Latta
improvisational musical informaticist
www.netjam.org
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]

Kim

what would be important is to get a list of the person who sign the  
agreement and this way the harvesting team can
check and ask contributors to sign the agreement before harvesting  
their code.

Stef

On 20 mars 07, at 00:02, Kim Rose wrote:

Craig Latta schrieb:
>> ...what <year> and <copyright holders> will be listed?
>
>      The <year> field will be a list of every year in which accepted
> contributions were created. The <copyright holders> field will be a list
> of all the contributors who wrote an accepted contribution made
> available via [1].

Ok, so all contributors *will* be listed. Thanks for clarifying.

Martin

Craig Latta replied to Ron:
>> We should be getting and following real legal advice not guessing...
>>    
>
>      That's what we're doing. I'm in contact with Viewpoints' legal
> counsel, via Kim Rose, and with counsel at the Software Freedom Law Center.
>  
Ok - so one of those two has seen the actual contribution form that was
sent, and the rest of the detailed plan, and confirmed it has the legal
effect we are after? I ask because as a layman I had the following
uncertainties about it:

********
A couple of comments about the agreement in case you send out more in
the future:
1. It is not very explicit about what contributions I agree to license
under the MIT license. Those in a released squeak-dev image? those ever
released in any kind of public image? those ever sent to the mailing list?
2. In the same vein, it does not specify which contributions in a
temporal sense: only past contributions? all future contributions? the
text suggests to me that past contributions are meant, but this is
implicit. If so, the text should include either a particular date or
allow me to enter one.
********

Have these been considered by the board and counsel? If they are moot, I
would be grateful for an explanation.

Thanks,
Daniel

Hi Stef--

> Kim, what would be important is to get a list of the person who sign
> the agreement and this way the harvesting team can check and ask
> contributors to sign the agreement before harvesting their code.

     We do have this information; I keep up-to-date with Viewpoints
about it. Please check http://netjam.org/squeak/contributors for updates.

     It seems like we could avoid some communication overhead for Kim
and Viewpoints by being a bit more coordinated. :)  Please just ask me
if you've got a question about licensing stuff. I'm in communication
with all parties, and I'm on top of it.


     thanks again!

-C

--
Craig Latta
improvisational musical informaticist
www.netjam.org
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]

> A couple of comments about the agreement in case you send out more in
> the future:
> 1. It is not very explicit about what contributions I agree to license
> under the MIT license.

As a layman, my understanding is that you aren't licensing anything
under the MIT license. Instead, under the agreement in

http://netjam.org/squeak/SqueakDistributionAgreement.pdf

you are giving a license to Distributor (VPRI) to relicense your
contribution under (*) the MIT license. The MIT license grants rights
explicitly to "any person"; the agreement grants rights only to
Distributor.

Regards,
Martin

Hi Martin, your comment is correct, but does not address my questions at
all.

1. Does the agreement mean that everything I ever write in Squeak is
redistributable by VPRI? or is it limited to the effective date? neither
is what we want. Therefore:
2. Has a lawyer looked at this agreement, and agreed that, in
conjunction with the other actions planned by the board, it has the
legal effect we want?

Note that I signed the agreement, and am more worried that it grants too
few rights to VPRI, rather than too many.

Daniel Vainsencher

Martin v. Löwis wrote:

Hi Daniel--

     Ron wrote:

> We should be getting and following real legal advice not guessing...

     I responded:

> That's what we're doing. I'm in contact with Viewpoints' legal
> counsel, via Kim Rose, and with counsel at the Software Freedom Law
> Center.

     You responded:

> Ok - so one of those two has seen the actual contribution form that
> was sent, and the rest of the detailed plan, and confirmed it has the
> legal effect we are after?

     Yes, they both have.

     You continue:

> A couple of comments about the agreement in case you send out more in
> the future...

     We certainly intend to send out more agreements, since there are
still contributors we haven't been able to contact yet. However, I think
it's extremely unlikely that the agreement will change; we want everyone
to sign the same agreement and getting everyone to sign anything is very
difficult, simply due to logistics.

> It is not very explicit about what contributions I agree to license
> under the MIT license.

     The agreement specifies code contributed to Squeak in the past by
the contributor. According to Viewpoints legal counsel, who wrote the
agreement, this is sufficiently explicit. So...

> Those in a released squeak-dev image?

     Yes.

> Those ever released in any kind of public image?

     Yes.

> Those ever sent to the mailing list?

     Yes.

> In the same vein, it does not specify which contributions in a
> temporal sense...

     Yes it does. It specifies code contributed to Squeak in the past by
the contributor. So...

> Only past contributions?

     Yes.

> All future contributions?

     No, and I think this is as it should be. What we're trying to do
here is establish appropriately permissive license terms for what we had
up to this point. After that, under those permissive terms, any entity
(such as the Squeak Foundation) is at liberty to take that body of code
and make releases under the terms they prefer (subject to the modest
requirements of the MIT license cited in the agreement).

     Going forward, I advocate requiring an explicit licensing statement
from each contributor for each future contribution, and that the terms
be those of the MIT license. It won't be hard, and, let's face it, if we
did otherwise we would continue to chew up large amounts of time
discussing licensing.

> The text suggests to me that past contributions are meant, but this is
> implicit.

     I think it's quite explicit, by the simple use of the past tense
("Supplier has contributed source code").

> If so, the text should include either a particular date or allow me to
> enter one.

     It did, in the first sentence ("Effective Date"). And it's not
merely allowing you to enter the date, it's a requirement, along with
your name and address.

> Have these been considered by the board and counsel?

     Yes.

> If they are moot, I would be grateful for an explanation.

     They're not moot, and I hope I've given a thorough and clear
explanation all the same. (Please accept my apologies if it was *too*
thorough :).


     thanks again,

-C

--
Craig Latta
improvisational musical informaticist
www.netjam.org
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]

Craig Latta wrote:
[snip]
>  What we're trying to do
> here is establish appropriately permissive license terms for what we had
> up to this point. After that, under those permissive terms, any entity
> (such as the Squeak Foundation) is at liberty to take that body of code
> and make releases under the terms they prefer (subject to the modest
> requirements of the MIT license cited in the agreement).
>  
Is there any code that has been included in the current Squeak releases
(or otherwise contributed) after the effective dates of their contributors?
>      Going forward, I advocate requiring an explicit licensing statement
> from each contributor for each future contribution, and that the terms
> be those of the MIT license. It won't be hard, and, let's face it, if we
> did otherwise we would continue to chew up large amounts of time
> discussing licensing.
>  
Sounds good to me. Is this the opening shot of a(nother) squeak-dev
"what will we do with future licenses" debate on the topic, or will the
board decide this issue? Actually, I think the position you advocate has
been consensus for quite a while, but maybe I'm wrong.
>> If they are moot, I would be grateful for an explanation.
>>    
>
>      They're not moot, and I hope I've given a thorough and clear
> explanation all the same. (Please accept my apologies if it was *too*
> thorough :).
>  
Your answer was clear, and quite informative. Would you Curious that you
should choose a style of communication which induces you to apologize in
advance :)

Daniel

Hi,

Is there a compiled VM that works under WinCE.Net (4.2 or 5, Intel PXA255)
with serial port and network support?

Thanks

Tansel

Hi Daniel--

> Is there any code that has been included in the current Squeak
> releases (or otherwise contributed) after the effective dates of their
> contributors?

     Almost certainly, since we have yet to receive agreements from all
contributors. However, that's irrelevant: we're creating the basis upon
which code is eligible for releases 3.10-final and later.

> Is this the opening shot of a(nother) squeak-dev "what will we do with
> future licenses" debate on the topic, or will the board decide this
> issue?

     The board will decide this issue; currently I believe we are in
unanimous agreement that it should operate as I described.

> Actually, I think the position you advocate has been consensus for
> quite a while, but maybe I'm wrong.

     I think that's right.

> > ...I hope I've given a thorough and clear explanation all the same.
> > (Please accept my apologies if it was *too* thorough :).
>
> Your answer was clear, and quite informative. Curious that you
> should choose a style of communication which induces you to apologize
> in advance :)

     (:

     Well, I think it's more an aspect of the topic, from past
experience. Some people just get tired of it, or don't like more than a
certain level of detail. Since I'm trying to go into exhaustive detail,
it seems like the probability of annoying those people is high. :)


     thanks again,

-C

--
Craig Latta
improvisational musical informaticist
www.netjam.org
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]