The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.

Hi all--

        Thanks to long-running efforts by folks at Viewpoints Research
Institute, Apple Computer and elsewhere, Apple has given Viewpoints
permission to make a release of the original public Squeak system using
the Apple Public Source License[1].

        Squeak 1.1, with an APSL2 license, is available here:

        http://squeakland.org/installers/Squeak1.1-APSL.zip

        The Squeak Foundation board would like to thank the above groups for
making this happen, and everyone else for being so patient!

        And now we live in interesting times. This only applies to the original
release of Squeak (version 1.1 of 23 September 1996); we now have a
choice between APSL2 and the original Squeak License[2] for that
release. We need to decide what to do about subsequent code, and code
written by third parties. We might choose to rewrite some things so as
to create a better licensing situation. We probably want to have a
policy whereby contributors agree to grant a particular license to their
work explicitly before we can accept it.

        How shall we proceed with future releases of Squeak? Let's discuss it.


        thanks again,
        your Squeak Foundation board

[1] http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/2.0.txt
[2] http://www.squeak.org/SqueakLicense

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

Very good news!

Thank you all for the hard work.

Cheers,

-- Diego
--
==========================================
 Diego Gomez Deck
------------------------------------------
 http://www.consultar.com/DiegoGomezDeck/
 http://diegogomezdeck.blogspot.com/
 http://smalltalk.consultar.com/
==========================================

        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
is, it's been a burden to us in the past, in my opinion.


-C

[1] http://opensource.org
[2] http://opensource.org/licenses/index.php

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

My small suggestions is to switch/rewrite as much as we can to the new license.
The reasoning is, to better server the other communities whom we trying to invite to our world.

  Yay!

  Yes, let's.  But, I'm too humble to start one by myself^^;

-- Yoshiki

On Wed, 2006-05-24 at 12:05 -0700, Yoshiki Ohshima wrote:
>   Yay!

I'll second that.

> On Wed also, Craig Latta wrote:
> > How shall we proceed with future releases of Squeak? Let's discuss it.
>
>   Yes, let's.  But, I'm too humble to start one by myself^^;

While I understand you mean that to be humorous, I would like to point
out that since you have been elected as a SqueakFoundation Board member
you no longer have any right to claim to be too humble on such issues
within this community.  Having elected you we expect and hope that you
will actively take lead in this sort of thing.  I don't mean to chide
you necessarily, but I felt it was a good opportunity to remind you and
other board members that we not only welcome leadership but expect it.

>
> -- Yoshiki

Thanks,

Ken

Thanks and congrats to everyone that has worked on this!

 I think the natural next steps are:
1. Finding for each method in recent Squeak, the names of all persons
who've modified them. The history images should make this feasible.
2. Gathering from all contributors a statement saying "all the code I
ever published into Squeak I relicense APSL 2.0", getting legal advice
on how to do this right (for example, helping people not declare
"work-for-hire").
3. Making it clear what code in the image remains tainted, to encourage
rewrites.

But a quick free release would be very nice. Say, Craig, how much code
is there in Spoon that is not covered by this new license and not
copyright Craig Latta?

Daniel

Craig Latta wrote:

Great! Now these are great news!

Cheers,
Juan Vuletich

----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Latta" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 3:59 PM
Subject: re: The original Squeak release is available under APSL2.

Daniel Vainsencher wrote: [snip Craig's original message]

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.

That way if we replace the IO code with Flow, etc. the licensing
improves. We replace MVC with Tweak. We replace Collections with the
Traits rewrite. etc...  Then we are left with a small core of Apple APSL
code and then other community member contributions with nicer, smaller,
cleaner licenses.

Regardless, under the APSL minimally puts Squeak into an understandable
situation by the larger programming, open source community.

Thanks to all who worked towards this. This could definitely provide a
nice foundation for the future.

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

My 2cents.

Jimmie

I'm going to try it in my PocketPC. Good news :)

2006/5/24, Jimmie Houchin <[hidden email]>:

--

::Mi blog::
http://blog.lordzealon.com

I agree with Jimmie, consider my proposal amended to read MIT (or
equivalent) license instead of "APSL 2.0". This gives us more
flexibility in the future.

This might seem strange, whats wrong with the APSL? well, I started
looking, and Debian has in the past removed APSL 2.0 packages from
Debian, so they're not satisfied (actually, they seem divided on it).
And people linking Squeak into various libraries might want to note that
APSL 2.0 is not GPL compatible. So yes, there is a reason not to place
any new code under the APSL, and to prefer MIT or such licenses.

That said, I believe the APSL does allow us wide distribution with open
source and free software venues, and is a very easy to live with license
for almost all purposes, and I therefore allow myself to anticipate that
this is the last Squeak licensing discussion I will be engaging in (Yay!).

Daniel

Jimmie Houchin wrote:

On 24-May-06, at 12:46 PM, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:

> Thanks and congrats to everyone that has worked on this!
>
> I think the natural next steps are:
> 1. Finding for each method in recent Squeak, the names of all  
> persons who've modified them. The history images should make this  
> feasible.
> 2. Gathering from all contributors a statement saying "all the code  
> I ever published into Squeak I relicense APSL 2.0",

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.


tim
--
tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
Strange OpCodes: SG: Show Garbage

Il giorno mer, 24/05/2006 alle 15.17 -0500, Jimmie Houchin ha scritto:

> 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 agree with Jimmie, if only because the APSL is a couple of pages of
legalese, while the BSD/MIT license is just ten lines long.

        Giovanni

Am 24.05.2006 um 23:50 schrieb tim Rowledge:

IIRC other organizations (I think it was the FSF) actually require a  
signed paper form for this. A wiki page isn't really legally binding,  
is it?

Nonetheless it would be a good indicator of what percentage of new  
code we could actual recover this way.

- Bert -

On 24-May-06, at 3:05 PM, Bert Freudenberg wrote:


>
> IIRC other organizations (I think it was the FSF) actually require  
> a signed paper form for this. A wiki page isn't really legally  
> binding, is it?
No idea, but it surely must be as binding as whatever one has already  
done by producing the file - why should changing something implicit  
in electronic form need explicit paper?
I should stop thinking about licensing before my tail starts steaming.

tim
--
tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
Useful Latin Phrases:- Illiud Latine dici non potest = You can't say  
that in Latin.

Am 25.05.2006 um 00:31 schrieb tim Rowledge:

> On 24-May-06, at 3:05 PM, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>
>> IIRC other organizations (I think it was the FSF) actually require  
>> a signed paper form for this. A wiki page isn't really legally  
>> binding, is it?
> No idea, but it surely must be as binding as whatever one has  
> already done by producing the file - why should changing something  
> implicit in electronic form need explicit paper?

Well, there is real paper, likely signed by Important People, in some  
drawer somewhere with the original, and the new license grant. And I  
guess it goes from there - the term "paper trail" must come from  
something, right?

> I should stop thinking about licensing before my tail starts steaming.

Good idea. Though I have a hunch we're not going to get around the  
Annual License Discussion this year, it's spring-time on squeak-dev,  
after all ;-)

- Bert -

  Ken,

 Causey wrote:
  As the discussion already got started, saying this would be
pointless... but I'll try to do my part.  Thanks!

-- Yoshiki

On Wed, 2006-05-24 at 16:14 -0700, Yoshiki Ohshima wrote:
>   As the discussion already got started, saying this would be
> pointless... but I'll try to do my part.  Thanks!
>
> -- Yoshiki

Excellent!  Thank you,

Ken

All,

That is really great news!  Thank you everyone at Viewpoints Research for
taking this on and making real progress!  

I agree with Jimmie we need to organize quickly and release a newly licensed
version, and we should continue pushing new code toward MIT.  The MIT is my
own personal opinion but it needs to be well thought out.

There does seem to be some questions as to the best license to adopt if we
are considering doing a 501(c)3 US corporation.  The details about free
licenses, agreements to distribute compilations with the copyright being
kept by the authors, or having copyrights signed over to the foundation are
not quite clear to me, so I would suggest we get good advice upfront before
moving too far forward.  

How we proceed from here could significantly impact the community.  The
questions that I believe need to be answered are:

        1) How does the community feel about signing agreements to
contribute code?  (Will having to accept something prevent people from
contributing?)
        2a) Would everyone agree to sign over their copyrights to the Squeak
foundation?
        2b) or would the community agree to sign over distribution rights to
the code instead
        3) Is there a benefit of one or the other (2a-b) for obtaining
501(c)3 status?
        4) Are there presidents we should be following for 501(c)3 license
agreements?  (Will the MIT license stand up to the public good test, how
will copyright ownership by SqF be viewed by the IRS?)

Do we need to actually rebuild a version from 1.1 that we receive from
Viewpoints?

I would think that it is possible to have and electronic version of a
license agreement that is accepted each time new code is submitted, and when
code is downloaded.  Maybe the contributors' acceptance of the license
agreement could be tracked on squeakSouce?  

Like Daniel, I'm very happy to put the license issues behind us!

Congratulations to all!

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig Latta
> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 1:38 PM

> Thanks to long-running efforts by folks at Viewpoints Research
> Institute, Apple Computer and elsewhere, Apple has given Viewpoints
> permission to make a release of the original public Squeak system using
> the Apple Public Source License.

Hi Daniel--

 > [Let's make] it clear what code in the image remains tainted, to
 > encourage rewrites.

        Right; I've been planning to implement license metadata for behavior,
to go along with authorship metadata, but I hadn't decided which
granularity to use (per-method? per-method-bytecode?). I'll go with
per-method and per-class-definition for now.

 > 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. ;)  I'd assumed it
would stay in the minimal system, at least to support Symbol interning.

        I'll be doing a thorough analysis of who owns what in Spoon.


        thanks,

-C

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