The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.

Hi Jimmie--

 > I think it would be nice for any code relicensed or published beyond
 > this release be license under either the new BSD or the MIT license.
 > That way as code is rewritten and replaced the overall licensing of
 > Squeak improves. I think the only code that should be APSL is the code
 > Apple contributes. Maybe doing a simple BSD/MIT based Squeak Public
 > License or some such.

        I think this is a good idea. I did a similar thing for previous Spoon
releases. I think as long as our trivial derived-from-BSD-or-MIT Squeak
license is compatible with the license each copyright holder wants to
use, then we're good. (And hopefully the total number of licenses
involved is very small, say two. :)

 > Is this where the disassembly of the monolithic image begins? Shrink
 > this image. Build back up with SM code, or some such.

        Yeah!


-C

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

>  > Say, Craig, how much code is there in Spoon that is not covered by
>  > this new license and not copyright Craig Latta?
>
>     The only thing I can think of offhand is the support for weak
> references, done by Andreas at Di... Di... no, I'm not going to be the
> first one to mention the next sleeping dog in public. ;)

Actually, no. There is quite a bit of work in Squeak that I have done
that is clearly not owned by the mouse and where I have proof for it.
Weak references is one of them, see for example:

http://isgwww.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/~raab/squeak/dev/Finalization/2.0/ObjectMemory-Finalization.st

This was released in May 98 (I can probably still find some email
conversation that goes back into 97) and I started working at Disney in
December '98 (finalization first appeared in 2.3 I think which was
released late 98, too). And although I did some consulting work in mid
to late '98 for Alan's group that code was long released by then. I did
it on my own, in my spare time and I own the copyright to these
modifications. (besides that particular code is stupid and should be
replaced anyway; I now know much better and easier and more flexible
ways to deal with finalization)

Cheers,
   - Andreas

        Excellent! Thanks for that info.


-C

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

> If someone could build a suitable page on a swiki (for example) for  
> this I would be very happy to declare everything I've previously  
> contributed as available under any relevant license or indeed, non-
> license.

We also need to include APSL2 license in SqueakMap (and SqueakSource?).

I'll also publish all my contributions in any license we agreed.  To
start I can re-license everything as "MIT/APSL2/SqueakL".

Cheers,

-- Diego

On 5/25/06, Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Well, there is real paper, likely signed by Important People, in some
> drawer somewhere with the original, and the new license grant.

Indeed. Still, I'll happily base any decisions on how to document
relicensing decisions on the advice we'll hopefully get from our legal
friends, like Dan Ravicher. Bringing the SFLC in is probably step #1.

Craig Latta wrote:
>     Oh, note that APSL2 is "OSI-approved" and "OSD-compliant"[1, 2]. One
> problem solved by using APSL2 (or a sublicense of it) is that we can say
> that Squeak is "open source" and no one will debate it. Tedious as this
wishful thinking - the debate about being open source or not comes up
around open solaris (cddl, OSI approved) all the time.

for some people, only some licenses are "really, really, really open
source the way $deity intended it to be[tm]" (gpl *cough*)

at least, reasonable people will be happy enough with that change, I
guess. so, still good news :-))


patrick mauritz

Hi,

is there any chance to get this license cover Smalltalk-80 V2, its sources and
image file as copyrighted and released 1983 by Xerox? And if so, who would be
the one to ask?

Regards,
Wolfgang
--
Weniger, aber besser.

Patrick Mauritz wrote:
> Craig Latta wrote:
>>     Oh, note that APSL2 is "OSI-approved" and "OSD-compliant"[1, 2].
>> One problem solved by using APSL2 (or a sublicense of it) is that we
>> can say that Squeak is "open source" and no one will debate it.
>> Tedious as this
> wishful thinking - the debate about being open source or not comes up
> around open solaris (cddl, OSI approved) all the time.

While this is true and the APSL is less free than I would prefer (as is
the gpl) or at least too long. It is at least an understood license and
people have an understanding where they stand with regard to it. With
the SqueakL too many people didn't even care to investigate it because
they would have to read it, analyze it and make a determination on their
position on a non-standard license.

So this is a very big win. Even if some people aren't for the APSL, they
understand its rights.

> for some people, only some licenses are "really, really, really open
> source the way $deity intended it to be[tm]" (gpl *cough*)

Ha ha. Yeah right. :)

> at least, reasonable people will be happy enough with that change, I
> guess. so, still good news :-))

Very much so.

And the interesting thing is that it possibly points us to a heretofore
unconsidered image for stripping and building.

There has been a fair amount of discussion of stripping images and some
on which image to operate on. This could be interesting. Says one who
isn't qualified to do. :(

Starting from a 1.6mb image as opposed to a 12mb image on up and then
harvest what we can from from the big images and package them.

Oh well, talk is easy. :)

Jimmie

Hi everyone,

As Andreas demonstrated, it is not obvious that you can relicense code
you've written just because you wish to. If you were employed at the
time of writing the code, it may (or may not) be copyright your
employer, and in some countries this is the case by default.

Sounds to me like gathering all the employment dates of everyone on the
wiki might be a bit too public, what do people think? I was just
starting to make a page to gather this information when the thought
occurred to me...

A question to the board: do you agree this would be a good time to get
detailed legal advice on how to go about relicensing the rest of Squeak
so that the move is legally valid?

Daniel

Diego Gomez Deck wrote:

> As Andreas demonstrated,  it is not obvious that you can relicense code
> you've written just because you wish to.

I did? I thought I did the precise opposite, namely demonstrating that
there are many bits and pieces that I *can* relicense nilly-willy
because I own them and have proof of that ownership ;-)

Cheers,
   - Andreas

  If you were employed at the

On 25-May-06, at 11:51 AM, Andreas Raab wrote:

>> As Andreas demonstrated,  it is not obvious that you can relicense  
>> code
>> you've written just because you wish to.
>
> I did? I thought I did the precise opposite, namely demonstrating  
> that there are many bits and pieces that I *can* relicense nilly-
> willy because I own them and have proof of that ownership ;-)

But the fact that you own 'many bits' carries the clear implication  
that you don't own other bits, which is likely the situation for many  
of us.

I'm pretty sure that I can claim legitimate control over all the code  
I've provided. A lot of VM and VMMaker code was written explicitly to  
release to the Squeak community and I assert that means giving it  
freely. There is also the point that Interval and exobox no longer  
exist to drop lawyers on us as well as the management in both cases  
being desirous of helping the community. Other code was written for  
VPRI with the explicit intention of giving it to the community and  
then recent stuff done for Sophie is likewise explicitly intended to  
be open. All the rest was done in my own time anyway and I consider  
that gifted to Squeak.


tim
--
tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
Useful random insult:- Got into the gene pool while the lifeguard  
wasn't watching.

Daniel said:
> A question to the board: do you agree this would be a good time to get
> detailed legal advice on how to go about relicensing the rest of Squeak
> so that the move is legally valid?

Cees previously said

"Indeed. Still, I'll happily base any decisions on how to document
relicensing decisions on the advice we'll hopefully get from our legal
friends, like Dan Ravicher. Bringing the SFLC in is probably step #1."

So that at least indicates someone on the Board is thinking in that direction.

Ken

SFLC = Software Freedom Law Center IIRC

The deal we had with Disney was to release to the community, as free and
open source, all code not having directly to do with "content and/or
product", and we did this continuously with their blessing. The code we
left behind (several products, etc.) belonged to Disney (and we indeed left
it there).

Cheers,

Alan

At 12:32 PM 5/25/2006, tim Rowledge wrote:

Alan Kay a écrit :
> The deal we had with Disney was to release to the community, as free and
> open source, all code not having directly to do with "content and/or
> product", and we did this continuously with their blessing. The code we
> left behind (several products, etc.) belonged to Disney (and we indeed
> left it there).
>

Hi Alan,

it means we could also release the last version of Squeak done by
SqueakCentral (3.5 ? 3.6 ?) with an APSL2 licence. And if everybody that
add some code since this version in the image, agree with the term of
this licence, the 3.9 version could also release with the APSL2 licence
(or a more simpler one like MIT) ?


--                                                         oooo
Dr. Serge Stinckwich                                     OOOOOOOO
Université de Caen>CNRS UMR 6072>GREYC>MAD               OOESUGOO
http://purl.org/net/SergeStinckwich                       oooooo
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]   \  /
                                                             ##

Hi Serge --

(mod) the copyright mess and copyright lawyers... yes, we have been careful
at Disney and then at HP to make sure that the code is put out free and
open source according to the Squeak licence and in agreement with these
companies.  So, in theory, it is. And, also in theory, it should be
relatively easy to deal with all the subsequent code.

Cheers,

Alan

At 04:24 AM 5/26/2006, Serge Stinckwich wrote:

I think that we should take the opportunity to put in place a way to  
track squeak developers/contributors
so that we avoid license mess.

I think that we (the squeakfoundation) will be looking for a  
volunteer (may be payed) to develop a small
app so that contributors can sign in that the code going into the  
image is under APSL2 or MIT or Squeak-L.

Stef

On 24 mai 06, at 19:38, Craig Latta wrote:

Yes Yoshiki.
:)
>
>>
>> -- Yoshiki
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ken
>

On squeakSource you can find a stupid package that return the authors  
of the package.
AuthorChecker does not take into account history just the latest  
version.
If someone wants to add that, feel free.

Stef


> 1. Finding for each method in recent Squeak, the names of all  
> persons who've modified them. The history images should make this  
> feasible.
>
> Daniel

+1
Then we can put in place the right infrastucture.

> On 5/25/06, Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Well, there is real paper, likely signed by Important People, in some
>> drawer somewhere with the original, and the new license grant.
>
> Indeed. Still, I'll happily base any decisions on how to document
> relicensing decisions on the advice we'll hopefully get from our legal
> friends, like Dan Ravicher. Bringing the SFLC in is probably step #1.

On 25 mai 06, at 20:14, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:

> A question to the board: do you agree this would be a good time to  
> get detailed legal advice on how to go about relicensing the rest  
> of Squeak so that the move is legally valid?

Yes, let us try to do it avoid making mistakes.