[squeak-dev] Funding (was: What Constitutes a Complete and Final Release?)

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
94 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[squeak-dev] Re: Funding

EstebanLM
On 2008-04-07 15:31:53 -0300, tim Rowledge <[hidden email]> said:

> A key problem with funding is the sheer amount one would need to  
> achieve very much; if we postulate a dozen people (say 10 that do  
> development work, a manager/leader and an admin) you would have to  
> budget around $1.2M a year; increasing steadily as the USD sinks into  
> the mire.

As Edgar said, here in Argentina (or other third world places), the
same amount of work (and with the same quality) is cheaper.
A short calculous with the same team description would represent a
budget around 300 thousand dollars here. And that with very decent
salaries (according with Argentina standards)
I think is something to have in mind: soon or later we will have to do
the work that no body else wants to do.

Cheers,
Esteban



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Funding

cedreek
>  A short calculous with the same team description would represent a budget
> around 300 thousand dollars here. And that with very decent salaries
> (according with Argentina standards)
>  I think is something to have in mind: soon or later we will have to do the
> work that no body else wants to do.
>

maybe indians ? ;-)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Funding

timrowledge
In reply to this post by Stephen Pair

On 7-Apr-08, at 12:00 PM, Stephen Pair wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:31 PM, tim Rowledge <[hidden email]> wrote:
A key problem with funding is the sheer amount one would need to achieve very much; if we postulate a dozen people (say 10 that do development work, a manager/leader and an admin) you would have to budget around $1.2M a year; increasing steadily as the USD sinks into the mire.

Are planning a mission to the moon?  There are many things that could be accomplished with a lot less.

What, you think I'm not worth 100K a year? 

tim
--
Strange OpCodes: DNPG: Do Not Pass Go




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Funding

johnmci
Well that seems reasonable first world rates. Recall Tim and I just  
came off the Sophie project where we had a budget in those figures,
don't forget all the stuff that has to be done, documentation, art  
work, mantis, VM work, image cleanup, releases etc etc etc.  Well let  
alone website, advertising, trade shows etc....

Today there are 4,099 entries in Mantis on Sophie, yet it's a *much*  
smaller scope than Squeak. So if one had *real* feature, problem, etc  
tracking for Squeak
how big do you think the mountain would be.


On Apr 7, 2008, at 12:50 PM, tim Rowledge wrote:

>
> On 7-Apr-08, at 12:00 PM, Stephen Pair wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:31 PM, tim Rowledge <[hidden email]>  
>> wrote:
>> A key problem with funding is the sheer amount one would need to  
>> achieve very much; if we postulate a dozen people (say 10 that do  
>> development work, a manager/leader and an admin) you would have to  
>> budget around $1.2M a year; increasing steadily as the USD sinks  
>> into the mire.
>>
>> Are planning a mission to the moon?  There are many things that  
>> could be accomplished with a lot less.
>
> What, you think I'm not worth 100K a year?
>
> tim
> --
> tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
> Strange OpCodes: DNPG: Do Not Pass Go
>
>
>

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



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Funding

timrowledge

On 7-Apr-08, at 1:03 PM, John M McIntosh wrote:

> Well that seems reasonable first world rates. Recall Tim and I just  
> came off the Sophie project where we had a budget in those figures,

... and also don't forget that that level was *very* much reduced  
because we wanted to work on something useful as opposed to merely  
commercial.
>
> don't forget all the stuff that has to be done, documentation, art  
> work, mantis, VM work, image cleanup, releases etc etc etc.  Well  
> let alone website, advertising, trade shows etc....

Exactly. Actual programming work is probably less than 20% of the real  
total.

tim
--
tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
Programmers do it bit by bit.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Funding

johnmci

On Apr 7, 2008, at 1:07 PM, tim Rowledge wrote:

>
> On 7-Apr-08, at 1:03 PM, John M McIntosh wrote:
>
>> Well that seems reasonable first world rates. Recall Tim and I just  
>> came off the Sophie project where we had a budget in those figures,
>
> ... and also don't forget that that level was *very* much reduced  
> because we wanted to work on something useful as opposed to merely  
> commercial.

Ya, did Tim mention the source code was all released under a BSD  
license?   http://sophieproject.org/about/license

Mmm lots there, really excellent typography, cairo interface, FFI to  
clipboard, quicktime, etc...

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



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Funding

Andres Valloud-3
In reply to this post by cedreek
Not funny.

Andres.


cdrick wrote:

>>  A short calculous with the same team description would represent a budget
>> around 300 thousand dollars here. And that with very decent salaries
>> (according with Argentina standards)
>>  I think is something to have in mind: soon or later we will have to do the
>> work that no body else wants to do.
>>
>>    
>
> maybe indians ? ;-)
>
>
>  


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Stuff from Sophie was Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Funding

Karl-19
In reply to this post by johnmci
John M McIntosh wrote:

>
> On Apr 7, 2008, at 1:07 PM, tim Rowledge wrote:
>
>>
>> On 7-Apr-08, at 1:03 PM, John M McIntosh wrote:
>>
>>> Well that seems reasonable first world rates. Recall Tim and I just
>>> came off the Sophie project where we had a budget in those figures,
>>
>> ... and also don't forget that that level was *very* much reduced
>> because we wanted to work on something useful as opposed to merely
>> commercial.
>
> Ya, did Tim mention the source code was all released under a BSD
> license?   http://sophieproject.org/about/license
>
> Mmm lots there, really excellent typography, cairo interface, FFI to
> clipboard, quicktime, etc...
The typography is really nice. How dependent is that on Tweak ?

Karl


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Funding

Stephen Pair
In reply to this post by timrowledge
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 3:50 PM, tim Rowledge <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 7-Apr-08, at 12:00 PM, Stephen Pair wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:31 PM, tim Rowledge <[hidden email]> wrote:
A key problem with funding is the sheer amount one would need to achieve very much; if we postulate a dozen people (say 10 that do development work, a manager/leader and an admin) you would have to budget around $1.2M a year; increasing steadily as the USD sinks into the mire.

Are planning a mission to the moon?  There are many things that could be accomplished with a lot less.
What, you think I'm not worth 100K a year? 

 Heh...not exactly what I meant.  I meant, you could do useful things on the scale of a few weeks and one or two people.

- Stephen


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Funding

Sean Heber
>> On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:31 PM, tim Rowledge <[hidden email]>  
>> wrote:
>> A key problem with funding is the sheer amount one would need to  
>> achieve very much; if we postulate a dozen people (say 10 that do  
>> development work, a manager/leader and an admin) you would have to  
>> budget around $1.2M a year; increasing steadily as the USD sinks  
>> into the mire.
>>
>> Are planning a mission to the moon?  There are many things that  
>> could be accomplished with a lot less.
> What, you think I'm not worth 100K a year?
>
>  Heh...not exactly what I meant.  I meant, you could do useful  
> things on the scale of a few weeks and one or two people.
>
> - Stephen

You could also pay for people to work in countries where the US  
Dollar (assuming that is the currency of choice for raising the  
funds) still has some weight and get more bang for your buck.  :-)

l8r
Sean


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[squeak-dev] The way ahead for 3.10... was:Re: Funding

Ken G. Brown
In reply to this post by keith1y
When going through the Installer sequence at <http://installer.pbwiki.com/> loading into
sq3.10-7159dev08.04.1,

Do this - 1. LevelPlayingField

Skip this - 1. Tidy - Cosmetic tidy up
Skip this - 2. Clean - Remove packages which can be loaded again
Do this - 3. Packages - Install "Sake" and Package Maps for your version
Do MinorFixes only - 4. Latest - MinorFixes, MajorFixes and PackageUpgrades
Do MinorFixesUnstable - 5. LatestUnstable - MinorFixesUnstable, MajorFixesUnstable
and PackageUpgradesUnstable

While doing MinorFixesUnstable, all seems ok until

" http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=6890 "
Installer mantis ensureFix: '0006890: PluggableListMorph is slow'.

After I install 6890, the System Browser scrollbars no longer work, they extend the full
length. The scroll arrows appear to work however.

Ken G. Brown

--- In [hidden email], Keith Hodges <keith_hodges@...> wrote:

>
> The way ahead for 3.10....
>
> 3.10 is out and has been announced as released. I myself was
> disappointed that the final 3.10 did not contain a couple of fixes that
> I regarded as essential. Having come to terms with the fact that I was
> never going to get the 3.10 team to see my point of view, I started LPF.
>
> I myself aim to use 3.10 + LPF + Clean + Latest, as the basis for the
> production images that I am using. At present I am using 3.10 + LPF +
> LatestUnstable.
>
> So I think that the way ahead for 3.10 is for the community to join in
> contributing to LPF scripts designed to be run in a fresh 3.10 image so
> that the combination of "3.10 + LPF + Tidy + Clean + Latest + Welcome"
> will produce what we are looking for, and that can be released later as
> 3.11 or 3.10.1
>
> best regards
>
> Keith
>




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stuff from Sophie was Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Funding

johnmci
In reply to this post by Karl-19
Ah the short answer is  0% dependent on Tweak to shouldn't be....

Go look at

MCHttpRepository
        location: 'http://source.impara.de/Rome'
        user: ''
        password: ''

well and no-doubt you need to pickup the

Sophie-Renderer
Sophie-Pages

etc

SophieTextDisplayObject  is asked to render on renderOn:
which invokes renderer renderText: self
which does the hard work of drawing the bits.
Well and lots more layers about this...



On Apr 7, 2008, at 1:43 PM, karl wrote:

> John M McIntosh wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 7, 2008, at 1:07 PM, tim Rowledge wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 7-Apr-08, at 1:03 PM, John M McIntosh wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well that seems reasonable first world rates. Recall Tim and I  
>>>> just came off the Sophie project where we had a budget in those  
>>>> figures,
>>>
>>> ... and also don't forget that that level was *very* much reduced  
>>> because we wanted to work on something useful as opposed to merely  
>>> commercial.
>>
>> Ya, did Tim mention the source code was all released under a BSD  
>> license?   http://sophieproject.org/about/license
>>
>> Mmm lots there, really excellent typography, cairo interface, FFI  
>> to clipboard, quicktime, etc...
> The typography is really nice. How dependent is that on Tweak ?
>
> Karl
>

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



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[squeak-dev] What turns off newcomers

David Goehrig
In reply to this post by Andreas Wacknitz
Andreas Wacknitz wrote:
And many of the newcomers get alienated by many aspects of Squeak:
    - it is hard to find documentation
    - it is hard to get used to Morphic (its power isn't obvious but its clutter is)
    - it is hard to find a Squeak version with not so many obvious bugs and problems
Long time lurker here,

Short answer: (For those who don't want to read the post)

Newcomers are turned off by seemingly irreducible complexity of the system; Squeak need continual refactoring.

Long answer:

My two cents as a "newcomer" to Squeak would be that all of these are real problems.  Every year or so I evaluate Squeak, as well as commercial smalltalks as part of my consulting business.  To give you an idea of where I'm coming from, our business helps startups identify new technologies and design platform architectures for "emerging markets".   Our customers range from 2 guys in a garage to large multinational entertainment conglomerates.  My typical project last about 4 months, and in the past 4 years, I've built systems using Javascript, Common Lisp, Perl, Python, PHP, Objective-C, C, C++, Java, Forth, Postscript, Ruby, Smalltalk, Ocaml, SML NJ, Lua, and Haskell.  These applications have been running on everything from 100 node clusters to cellphones.

I've wanted to use Squeak on several occasions but ran into trouble quickly enough to have to switch gears.  This year's evaluation ran into some issues:

1.) Image stability issues (or why does my image keep curling up into fetal position and crying)
  • upgrading an individual package can break your image bad and in unpredictable ways
  • package dependencies are difficult to identify resolve before you install
  • base Squeak image is too big, and while the community provided images are great, it can be hard to determine what one "needs" vs. "nice to have"
  • staying current is too dangerous, but without an obvious release schedule / road map  it is difficult to know when to upgrade
2.) Documentation vs Reality (or what smalltalkers forgot to tell their children)
  • documentation within core classes often missing and occasionally out of date
  • while source is easily readable and understandable, much of the WHY is missing
  • getting non-smalltalkers into the smalltalk culture is hard without a historical perspective
  • breaking bad habits of gang of 4 "design patterns" programmers is nearly impossible
3.) Process & Threading & UI issues (or how squeak is slow & ugly)
  • it is way too easy to lockup the current scheduler & green threads implementation
  • UI responsiveness on a "fast" machine often leads to buggy clicking, typing issues
  • Fonts are incredibly fickle and obstinate :)
4.) Extending & Embedding (or how squeak doesn't play nice with others)
  • there are tons of 3rd party libraries squeak can't interface to (that _____ already does)
  • it is more difficult to maintain and build a custom VM, plugin, compared to other interpreted languages (as I've done with Perl, Python, Ruby, Lua, Javascript, and Java)
  • many platform features on Linux / BSD / Mac OS X are difficult to take advantage of without custom extensions
  • hard to talk to actual hardware within Squeak
But none of these things are really the issue that kept it out of the running as the choice of tool.  In fact these are all different problems from the prior years evaluations.

Assume for a second that I can convince a client that they don't need to worry about supporting the product, because that's the service I'm selling them.  My biggest hurdle to using Squeak in a production environment isn't image management (it is easily scriptable), and it isn't version control (MC is wonderful), and it isn't the development tools (hey they're the selling point).  My biggest problem isn't finding other programmers to train, or training them (I take it as a given that even experienced programmers need constant training). 

My biggest problem is that it is too complex, and too difficult to reduce that complexity without breaking things. 

When you build a project on top of Squeak, it is common practice to assume that Squeak is a layer of irreducible complexity, on top of which you are adding more complexity.  Design decisions within that body of code, determine the applicability of every design decision you make about your actual application.  And as soon as you are attempting to do something that is non-trivial for Squeak, you find yourself in a strange sea where dragons lurk behind every wave.

Part of this problem is a historical accident, the smalltalk community in general relies heavily upon a shared cultural memory, as images beget images and layers of cruft get lost among the cobwebs.  But a large part of this problem is a forgetfullness, where design decisions were made in a context, and as the context changed so too should have the design, but with the WHY lost, the change doesn't happen.  Squeak needs a continuous refactoring.  Odds are Alan Kay's goal of a 20k LOC system could be beaten easily by 10k if this were done.

A newcomer to Squeak looks at the incomprehensible class listings and asks herself "Do I really need this particular piece of junk", looks for an answer to "Why is this here", and is frustrated because often the answer to those questions has been forgotten (or is only held in someone else's head).  Upgrading feel like Russian roulette  because it is difficult to know how the changes will effect the system.  And  experimentation  with making fundamental changes  is equally frustrating as  doing an engine change on car running down 101 during rush hour.  From this perspective and experience Craig Latta's Spoon is an easier sell than a full Squeak release.  The reason is simple, its a programmer's mantra: Less Code, Fewer Bugs, Lower cost.


Those are my 2 cents, lurking mode on.

Dave


--

David J. Goehrig


Phone: (716)-348-2984

Email: [hidden email]



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[squeak-dev] Re: Funding

Andreas.Raab
In reply to this post by johnmci
John M McIntosh wrote:
> Ya, did Tim mention the source code was all released under a BSD
> license?   http://sophieproject.org/about/license
>
> Mmm lots there, really excellent typography, cairo interface, FFI to
> clipboard, quicktime, etc...

Which bits exactly are covered by the license?

Cheers,
   - Andreas

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [squeak-dev] What turns off newcomers

Igor Stasenko
In reply to this post by David Goehrig
Working mode off.
Chatting mode on.

In short, the main issue is lack of modularity.
As you may know this is one of the primary concerns of current board &
release team.
We have to deal with this, and deal nicely. Otherwise squeak will be
buried under cruft of 'irreducible complexity'.

Smalltalk, by its nature does not defines a high-level abstractions
which can be called 'module' or 'package'.
In many other languages this concept included as basic one, while in
Squeak we stick with an image-based concept,
where image is a big monster with untamed complexity, where changing
any piece of code could lead into breakage in unpredictable place(s),
because everything is late bound.

I'm aware of at least two of module-based solutions for Squeak:
- Spoon by Craig Latta
- Namespaces by Michael van Der Gulik , as part of his SecureSqueak project

Both systems currently in development. And almost 99% it is solo
development by their authors.
Both systems having own pros and cons , and it's hard to decide (as
for me), which is better for the future of Squeak.

Why we don't see these systems already employed?
Currently we have so-called 'status-quo'.

I think , the main problem is more social than lack of manpower or
funding: There is no high pressure from squeak community (and nobody
having an ultimate power to force it) to abandon obsolete concepts,
sacrifice ST-80 compatibility (partly) and move forward with system
based on better design & modularity.

Chatting mode off.
Working mode on.

--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [squeak-dev] What turns off newcomers

Sean Heber
In reply to this post by David Goehrig
On Apr 7, 2008, at 5:15 PM, David J. Goehrig wrote:
> When you build a project on top of Squeak, it is common practice to  
> assume that Squeak is a layer of irreducible complexity, on top of  
> which you are adding more complexity.  Design decisions within that  
> body of code, determine the applicability of every design decision  
> you make about your actual application.  And as soon as you are  
> attempting to do something that is non-trivial for Squeak, you find  
> yourself in a strange sea where dragons lurk behind every wave.

(snip)

> A newcomer to Squeak looks at the incomprehensible class listings  
> and asks herself "Do I really need this particular piece of junk",  
> looks for an answer to "Why is this here", and is frustrated  
> because often the answer to those questions has been forgotten (or  
> is only held in someone else's head).  Upgrading feel like Russian  
> roulette  because it is difficult to know how the changes will  
> effect the system.  And  experimentation  with making fundamental  
> changes  is equally frustrating as  doing an engine change on car  
> running down 101 during rush hour.  From this perspective and  
> experience Craig Latta's Spoon is an easier sell than a full Squeak  
> release.  The reason is simple, its a programmer's mantra: Less  
> Code, Fewer Bugs, Lower cost.

For what it's worth, as a long time lurker and essentially a non-user  
myself with a background in "traditional" languages, these two  
passages nearly completely nailed how I feel about Squeak and the  
idea of using Squeak as it exists now.  I couldn't have said it  
better myself - and I've tried.  :-)

l8r
Sean


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [squeak-dev] What turns off newcomers

Sean Heber
In reply to this post by Igor Stasenko
On Apr 7, 2008, at 6:19 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
> I think , the main problem is more social than lack of manpower or
> funding: There is no high pressure from squeak community (and nobody
> having an ultimate power to force it) to abandon obsolete concepts,
> sacrifice ST-80 compatibility (partly) and move forward with system
> based on better design & modularity.

That's an interesting observation.  A lot of the popular scripting  
languages that move forward in sudden bursts are the ones with de-
facto heads of state such as Larry Wall or Guido von Rossum.  These  
are people who are in a position to announce to the entire community  
that the next version is going down such-and-such path and that is  
simply the way it is because their language is defined by their  
personality, to some extent.

As an outsider, I see Squeak seeming to be trying to function under  
an ideal democratic model where there's really no leadership at all.  
Unfortunately, you can't please everyone all the time and expect any  
changes to occur.  Historically, you often need a single or small  
group of focused radicals in a position of power to effect change -  
for better or worse.  The board could be that group of radicals by  
doing things like getting together and redefining what "Squeak"  
actually means.  What it includes in an image.  What it looks like.  
How you use it.  They can do this by refusing any and all changes  
that do not further that new definition and by providing a quick path  
to remove code but a slow one to add it.  Actions like that could  
cause tensions and ultimately Squeak may fork - or a new board gets  
elected - but maybe that's okay, too.  They will have tried.  The  
board could take the initiative and fork themselves starting a  
"Squeak Classic" branch and redefining what "Squeak" means now and  
into the future as the "main" branch without having to hurt too many  
people's feelings along the way.

l8r
Sean


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [squeak-dev] What turns off newcomers

timrowledge
I think there is a bit of a logical problem here ins that if the  
system *didn't* have 'all that junk' the immediate result would be  
complaints that 'it doesn't have all that useful stuff like other  
systems'.

tim
--
tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
"Both.." said Pooh, as the guillotine came down



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [squeak-dev] What turns off newcomers

Randal L. Schwartz
In reply to this post by Sean Heber
>>>>> "Sean" == Sean Heber <[hidden email]> writes:

Sean> Historically, you often need a single or small group of focused radicals
Sean> in a position of power to effect change - for better or worse.  The
Sean> board could be that group of radicals by doing things like getting
Sean> together and redefining what "Squeak" actually means.  What it includes
Sean> in an image.  What it looks like.  How you use it.

Oddly enough, that's my vision for the SqF board as well.  And I'm on it.  I
believe there needs to be a clear focus, and I'll be working to ensure that
the board provides the focus.

--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<[hidden email]> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[squeak-dev] Re: Sophie License was (Funding)

johnmci
In reply to this post by Andreas.Raab
Ah a license question.
Well I'm not a lawyer, however my understanding is below, I'm sure  
others will comment.

Sophie loads onto a base 3.8.x squeak image (license for that is?)  
comes from I think the iSqueak repository.
then we load stuff from

source.impara.de/iSqueak   (license?)  ask impara
source.impara.de/Tweak   (license?)  ask impara
source.impara.de/freetype (license?)  ask impara
source.impara.de/Rome  (license?)  ask impara
source.impara.de/Grit   (license?) ask impara

I also have stuff from
http://www.squeaksource.com/XMLSupport.html   (license?) ask Michael
http://www.squeaksource.com/ToolBuilder.html (license?)


For
source.sophieproject.org/Sophie  any category starting with Sophie-  
is clearly written for Sophie thus under the
Sophie license.  In theory all code in there should be under the  
Sophie license however there *could* be some
contamination when you consider we modify or add to existing classes  
found in the base squeak and from other repositories on  impara.de

Say for example overrides  or mod to the base URI class in Squeak,  
what license does that method have then?


Other categories
XUL not sure (ask impara) Although since it starts at XUL-be.2 in  
the repository I'm sure it's Sophie-License.
System-ClipBoard-Extended Sophie License
System-ClipBoard-Extended-Plugin   Sophie License
S3* Sophie License.
Network-MIME Sophie License
Files-Locations Sophie License

These are overrides and additional code to stuff in Tweak, Squeak and  
EToys.

Multilingual Sophie License for the overrides and additions, code  
base Squeak
Scripting Sophie License for the overrides and additions, code base  
Tweak
Multilingual-Display Sophie License for the overrides and additions,  
code base Squeak
Multilingual-Scanning Sophie License for the overrides and additions,  
code base Squeak
Network-URI Sophie License for the overrides and additions, code  
base Squeak
Sophie-Movie Sophie License, but contains OGG code from the EToys  
OLPC project,  (code base OLPC EToys).

Any macintosh C source code I wrote for Sophie would be under the MIT  
license.

Anyone of course relying on this should do their own audit of course.

On Apr 7, 2008, at 3:25 PM, Andreas Raab wrote:

> John M McIntosh wrote:
>> Ya, did Tim mention the source code was all released under a BSD  
>> license?   http://sophieproject.org/about/license
>> Mmm lots there, really excellent typography, cairo interface, FFI  
>> to clipboard, quicktime, etc...
>
> Which bits exactly are covered by the license?
>
> Cheers,
>  - Andreas

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



12345