[squeak-dev] How to rewrite a license restricted method?

>   BTW, as for SUnit, the (real) original SUnit is flagged as "Public
> Domain" and the Squeak version was one time under SqL.  But Sames and
> JPerline sent us the signature so we can consider it clean.  And I
> didn't think there was anybody for Monticello and Universes and Traits
> that matters (I could be wrong).  
1) Monticello is covered (1.5 is already), and whatever MC is in 4.0
will be covered.

2) Traits is fine according to Stephane Ducasse

Audit of Universes, MC1.5 reports that the set of authors, scanning
every method in every version is:

('tonyg','pmm',damiencasssou,'ls','ms,'dc',kph','lr')

searching the list of initials I get:

'ms'->#()
'tonyg'->#(#dataReturnedSignatories)
'kph'->#(#dataNewContributors)
'pmm'->#(#dataMissingSignatories)
'lr'->#(#dataReturnedSignatories)
'ls'->#(#dataReturnedSignatories)
'damiencassou'->#(#dataReturnedSignatories)
'dc'->#(#dataReturnedSignatories))

"ms" ken thinks is Matthew Suen, and Philippe?

Keith

> Audit of Universes, MC1.5 reports that the set of authors, scanning
> every method in every version is:

> 'ms'->#()
>
> "ms" ken thinks is Matthew Suen, and Philippe?

I think that would be me - Michal Starke - probably for the preambles
/ postscripts I had added to MC a long time ago. If so: I have signed
the relicensing agreement. (Show me which methods we are talking
about, to be sure those are my stamps.)

Michal

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Michal Starke <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> 'ms'->#()
>>
>> "ms" ken thinks is Matthew Suen, and Philippe?
>
> I think that would be me - Michal Starke - probably for the preambles
> / postscripts I had added to MC a long time ago. If so: I have signed
> the relicensing agreement. (Show me which methods we are talking
> about, to be sure those are my stamps.)

Mathieu Suen can also be the author of these methods.

--
Damien Cassou
http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st

On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 17:33 +0100, Damien Cassou wrote: Yes, I meant Matthieu Suen (two ts I think).  This was largely
speculative on my part but in support of this theory is the fact that on
map.squeak.org there are two accounts:

initials name email address

msue mathk [hidden email]
ms math [hidden email]

combined together these suggest that Matthieu has used the initials ms
at some point.  I have Cc'ed both in this email.

That said, reference to the 'offending' methods would be good and Michal
can check and see what he thinks.  And maybe Matthieu will respond.

Ken

Hi!

Damien Cassou wrote:
Which is EXACTLY why I always say developers should register themselves
and their initials on SqueakMap!

And register here:

        http://map.squeak.org/newaccount

It is truly trivial to do. It will tell you in RED if your initials are
already taken.

You can also see all currently registered here:

        http://map.squeak.org/accountsbyinitials

regards, Göran

> Which is EXACTLY why I always say developers should register themselves and
> their initials on SqueakMap!

SqueakSource has more than twice as many initials registered, 1874 in
total. If somebody needs the list I can create an export.

Lukas

--
Lukas Renggli
http://www.lukas-renggli.ch

Lukas Renggli wrote:
>> Which is EXACTLY why I always say developers should register themselves and
>> their initials on SqueakMap!
>
> SqueakSource has more than twice as many initials registered, 1874 in
> total. If somebody needs the list I can create an export.

I know - but there is only ONE SqueakMap. But several SS instances,
right? We really should do something about this. :)

regards, Göran

Michal Starke wrote: You are listed as "mist" in the agreement. This particular audit was for
the package  "Universes". I have had an email from Matthew Suen
admitting his involvement!

Thanks for replying

Keith

Hi Ken--

      Please accept my apologies for the delay in my response.

 > How much of a change is a significant change?

      The advice we got from the Software Freedom Conservancy's legal
counsel, the Software Freedom Law Center, was that every change,
regardless of length, is potentially significant. They advised that we
remove or rewrite all code for which we could not obtain a license. They
acknowledged that this may not be possible (more on that question
below), but their advice was to attempt it. At the time of our first
conversations (December 2007), the prime examples were contributions
from authors who had since died and whose estates had not yet responded.

      They were hard-pressed to give us step-by-step instructions for
how to conduct a rewrite, both because they are unfamiliar with
Smalltalk development and because there is actually no
generally-accepted and court-tested protocol. However, they repeatedly
stressed that the most important thing is to document what we do, so
that they may review it if necessary.

      Randal, as the Squeak 4.0 release team's advisor from the
leadership team, has asked the Conservancy to restate their position on
"threshold of significance" question.

      Personally, I would do as Jimmie suggests: remove the offending
methods and debug the system back into working order. In effect, you are
rewriting that behavior by concretely satisfying the contract it had
made with the rest of the system[1].

      However, like Yoshiki, I'm not convinced that we have actually
reached an impasse. It may well be that yes, we have tried to remove or
rewrite the contributions for which we couldn't get a license, and no,
we can't do it because it's beyond our resources. In that case, it seems
to me we would tell this to the Conservancy and see if they think the
risk represented by what we were able to do is acceptable to them. I
don't think we've reached that point, but of course folks like you and
Matthew are in a better position to make that decision.


      thanks,

-C

[1]

      I'm doing this on an extreme scale with Spoon, by providing an
object memory with almost every method removed (and a means for adding
methods subsequently, with an enhanced approach to system organization,
see http://netjam.org/spoon/naiad ).

--
Craig Latta
www.netjam.org
next show: 2009-03-13 (www.thishere.org)