[squeak-dev] On the swazoo list

>>>>> "Paolo" == Paolo Bonzini <[hidden email]> writes:

>> Because he is trying to appeal to a broader audience than appeals to
>> LGPL within the Squeak community.

Paolo> Because the Squeak community does not want to read licenses and prefers to
Paolo> remain hostage of FUD.

I'm not sure at this point where the greater FUD lies.

Do you agree that LPGL is *more* restrictive than MIT?  If not, we have
nothing further to discuss.

--
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!

Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Because he is trying to appeal to a broader audience than appeals to
>> LGPL within the Squeak community.
>
> Because the Squeak community does not want to read licenses and prefers
> to remain hostage of FUD.

Bah. The complexity of LGPL is no FUD. The reason these questions arise
is because LGPL is overly complex. To apply it properly you need to know
what constitutes modification vs. what constitutes use,  you need to
know whether the combination of particular pieces of code are
"derivative work" or a "modified work" or "combined work", you need to
know what it means to have a "suitable linking mechanism" and so on.

For anyone who likes clarity, LGPL is not the license of choice. Choose
GPL or MIT. With those two you know what you get, there is no
possibility of misinterpreting any of the two.

The other problem with (L)GPL is the people who choose it. That's
because those people clearly want others to "share by default" and have
therefore a vested interest in the broadest possible application of the
"modification clauses". Which means that, as a user of a piece of LGPLed
code, you need to be aware that the original author might come after you
because he feels you're not sharing the stuff that (you think) you
rightly can claim your own use of the library. After all, if the author
would trust you, they might as well choose MIT and let you decide what
and how to share it. This intrinsic distrust of (L)GPL is why I don't
voluntarily subject myself to these licenses.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

On 25/03/2008, Jimmie Houchin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  Yes, your insistence on your code remaining LGPL does affect the current
>  codebase.

Well, thank you for acknowledging that.

>  But that does not limit the rights of all the other
>  contributors should they choose to relicense their code under MIT.

Indeed not, but they were never given that chance were they?  Janko
decided that the license was now MIT for all contributors code without
bothering to discuss it with any of them.  Now, in retrospect, he is
trying to pursuade those copyright holders to accept the MIT license.
But perhaps, like me, they won't like being told that that is how it
must be after the fact.

> Yes,
>  the current distribution of Swazoo 2.x will remain LGPL.

Thank you for acknowledging that.

> But you don't
>  have the right to hold hostage future versions simply because you prefer
>  the LGPL and not MIT.

Nor did I say I would, and nor would I wish to.  Let's not forget who
is doing the actual infringing of whose copyright at the moment, hm?

What I asked for that the documentation in the Squeak source
repository be corrected to show that Swazoo is under the LGPL.  You
acknowledge above that Swazoo is indeed under the LGPL so, as you seem
to speak for the MIT-Swazoo camp, may I ask that you correct the
Squeak and SourceForge entries?

>  > You may remove my code if you wish of course, but while you are using
>  > it you are doing so under the LGPL.  And the same applies to the rest
>  > of Swazoo until you get the copyright holders to agree.
>
> He never said otherwise

But he did.  He announced that the existing Swazoo work (as in Squeak)
was either under no particular license or the MIT license depending
upon his mood.  He has only just started trying to contact the
copyright holders to ask, in retrospect, if this is OK.

>  And above he says he is going to contact the authors.

After the fact.

> So he
>  will have permission from the authors who grant such, and authors who do
>  not, apparently he will remove the code. Then the codebase will then be
>  clean of LGPL code.

Assuming all that, then yes, of course,

>  > What a mess you have made, Janko.  Why didn't you just leave Swazoo
>  > under the LGPL?
>
> Because he is trying to appeal to a broader audience than appeals to
>  LGPL within the Squeak community.

No, because he tried to do it by stealth and by infringing upon the
copyrights of others.  Janko never posted a "Should we move Swazoo to
MIT?" message to the Swazoo list, or anywhere else as far as I know.

Anyway, lets sort out the copyright infringement mess before we talk
about potential alternative licenses.

>  Personally, since AIDA/Web uses Swazoo, if this didn't get cleaned up, I
>  was going to not use AIDA/Web for projects. So this does have practical
>  impacts on the use of software within Squeak.

I am very sorry to hear that.  It is not my intention to harm other
projects but rather to protect my own.  I have a large code base now
that relies on Hyper and Hyper derives from early versions of Swazoo,
so just like you I do have "practical impacts" to worry about.  This
is not just a game.

>  Yes, he may have made a mistake in making errant statements about
>  changing it MIT without permissions.

He certainly did.  Now we need to clear up the mess.

All the best,
    Bruce
--
Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills
http://www.openskills.org/

>>> Because he is trying to appeal to a broader audience than appeals to
>>> LGPL within the Squeak community.
>
> Paolo> Because the Squeak community does not want to read licenses and prefers to
> Paolo> remain hostage of FUD.
>
> I'm not sure at this point where the greater FUD lies.
>
> Do you agree that LPGL is *more* restrictive than MIT?

Of course.

I don't mean FUD as in "FUD talk", but the Squeak community's own fears,
uncertainties and doubts about the applicability of the LGPL.

Paolo

On 25/03/2008, Andreas Raab <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Bah. The complexity of LGPL is no FUD. The reason these questions arise
>  is because LGPL is overly complex.

No, Andreas. In this case the issue has arrisen because someone has
decided by themselves to make other peoples copyright material
available under a new license of their choosing without discussion
with the copyright holders.

This is copyright infringement.

The situation would be just the same if someone picked up your code
and made it available under a license that suited them.  I doubt you'd
like it.

The nature of the licenses is nothing to do with this particular mess.

--
Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills
http://www.openskills.org/

Hi Bruce -

Bruce Badger wrote:
> I am very sorry to hear that.  It is not my intention to harm other
> projects but rather to protect my own.  I have a large code base now
> that relies on Hyper and Hyper derives from early versions of Swazoo,
> so just like you I do have "practical impacts" to worry about.  This
> is not just a game.

Out of honest curiosity, how would these large code bases be harmed by
Swazoo being under MIT instead of LGPL? (I am assuming that by
"protecting your own project" you mean that these projects would be
harmed by the use of MIT)

Cheers,
   - Andreas

Yes, this I don't understand either.

Hyper can still be LGPL if Swazoo turns to MIT.

Paolo

On 25/03/2008, Andreas Raab <[hidden email]> wrote:
I don't know, but I wished to avoid having to worry about that.  Even
having to spend the time worrying about these things is expensive as
we can see right now :-/

I was supposed to be working on Slaps (an LDAP library) this weekend,
instead I have been defending my copyrights :-(

--
Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills
http://www.openskills.org/

Bruce Badger wrote:
Sorry, but by "these questions" I mean the questions that arose around
the issue what it means for projects like Seaside if Swazoo is LGPLed,
not whether Swazoo actually is LGPL or not. I'm not arguing either way
on that (because I don't know the facts) but I can say that the whole
line of questions starting from "what do I have to do to comply with
LGPL" only comes up because of the complexity of LGPL itself. And that's
no FUD, that's the (sad) reality.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

>
> The situation would be just the same if someone picked up your code
> and made it available under a license that suited them.  I doubt you'd
> like it.
>
> The nature of the licenses is nothing to do with this particular mess.
>

On 25/03/2008, Paolo Bonzini <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Yes, this I don't understand either.
>
>  Hyper can still be LGPL if Swazoo turns to MIT.

Janko questions whether Swazoo was ever under the LGPL.  Also, Janko
claims that he keeps the Swazoo HTTP server in step with Hyper by
pulling in code from Hyper.

I want there to be no doubt about my works.

--
Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills
http://www.openskills.org/

"Paolo Bonzini" <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Because he is trying to appeal to a broader audience than appeals to
> > LGPL within the Squeak community.
>
> Because the Squeak community does not want to read licenses and prefers
> to remain hostage of FUD.

Wow, I'm getting heartily sick of this arguing about licences. And I'm
getting particularly sick of listening to the badmouthing flying around.

Please cut out the ad hominem attacks. And the sweeping slurs of a very fine
community.

(I'm not picking on you in particular, Paolo. Your mail's just the straw
that broke this camel's back.)

frank

Bruce Badger wrote:
> On 25/03/2008, Jimmie Houchin <[hidden email]> wrote:
[snip]
>>  But that does not limit the rights of all the other
>>  contributors should they choose to relicense their code under MIT.
>
> Indeed not, but they were never given that chance were they?  Janko
> decided that the license was now MIT for all contributors code without
> bothering to discuss it with any of them.  Now, in retrospect, he is
> trying to pursuade those copyright holders to accept the MIT license.
> But perhaps, like me, they won't like being told that that is how it
> must be after the fact.

Yes, Janko made a mistake. Been acknowledged and hopefully corrected by
now. None of this is in retrospect. It is correcting a mistake and
moving forward. Why don't we quit speaking on behalf of those copyright
holders and let them speak for themselves. Time will tell where they
stand on this.

>> Yes, the current distribution of Swazoo 2.x will remain LGPL.
>
> Thank you for acknowledging that.
>
>> But you don't have the right to hold hostage future versions simply
>> because you prefer the LGPL and not MIT.
>
> Nor did I say I would, and nor would I wish to.  Let's not forget who
> is doing the actual infringing of whose copyright at the moment, hm?

Is it at the moment. Or is it a mistake which was made and has been
corrected. In which case, it is you living in the past and refusing to
come to the present in this discussion.

You seem to wish to make his mistake the sole pivotal issue in this. It
is not. This issue is the license under which Swazoo will be made
available to Squeak or anyone else. If Janko is willing and able to do
the work for Swazoo 3.0 to be MIT then I and probably others will be
grateful and appreciative of this.

> What I asked for that the documentation in the Squeak source
> repository be corrected to show that Swazoo is under the LGPL.  You
> acknowledge above that Swazoo is indeed under the LGPL so, as you seem
> to speak for the MIT-Swazoo camp, may I ask that you correct the
> Squeak and SourceForge entries?

I speak for myself. It happens that many others agree. Just as there are
some who may agree with you. It is the nature of argument. And
regardless of my position, I am not in any position of authority to do
what you want. Regardless, can you point to me a place where the offense
still exists? Lets move on. You made your point. Janko corrected the
mistakes. (As far as I can see) And Janko has moved on and is trying to
make positive progress. Not living in the past.

Au contraire, both your statement and mine are after acknowledgment and
correction (IMO) of mistake. So in the context of my statement being
after the  acknowledgment/correction, I am speaking of current actions
and not past mistakes. Which is also what you were addressing in your
comments to Janko.

>>  And above he says he is going to contact the authors.
>
> After the fact.

Yes, after the mistake. Big Whoop! Have you never made a mistake and
tried to move on afterward? He doesn't have a time machine in order to
do this before the mistake or to go back and not make the mistake.


You are still attributing malice, where I don't believe it belongs. A
mistake yes, malice aforethought, I think not. He questioned the
validity of the LGPL designation and made a mistake. OK. That does not
imply malice. Its hard to anything stealthy about something so open and
widely seen as this.

Absolutely not a game. But I do not believe that an MITed Swazoo affects
you negatively at all. However, a LGPLed Swazoo can affect/infect much.
Even innocent use of such.

You have copyrights to your contributions regardless of the license.
Nobody (even Janko) wants to mess with that.

The very simple facts are:

The Squeak community is an MIT community. It is the favored and
preferred license of this community.

The LGPL is unclear in the context of Squeak and image based
environments. And nobody here wants to be in a position to have to
defend their compliance with such licenses. The defense of such is too
great a burden even if the user of LGPL code is innocent of violation.

It is far easier and far better to just avoid an area of legal
contention. Nobody here wants precedent setting cases for the uses of
their code.

The MIT places no such burdens. MIT code can be used without problem in
LGPL software. And does not increase its burden. Such cannot be said
about LGPL software inside of MIT software. It isn't so clear.

And as Andreas so excellent expressed, the point of view of people who
choose LGPL (or crafted or enforce the license) is the broadest possible
application of the modification clauses. And that causes undue burden on
users. Because then the user has learn to legally draw defensible lines
in what is theirs and how theirs uses the others code. A situation which
does not occur with MIT code.

I choose to avoid the excessive burdens of LGPL code within Squeak.

Jimmie

Andreas Raab wrote:
Most excellently expressed. Thank you.

Jimmie

> The other problem with (L)GPL is the people who choose it. That's
> because those people clearly want others to "share by default" and have
> therefore a vested interest in the broadest possible application of the
> "modification clauses".

That's what you believe, Andreas, not the reason why most people choose
LGPL.  For example, I am interested in the "fairest" possible
application of Section 2.

> This intrinsic distrust of (L)GPL is why I don't
> voluntarily subject myself to these licenses.

This I understand, however, together with your position on the
complexity of the license.

Paolo

"Frank Shearar" <[hidden email]> wrote

> Please cut out the ad hominem attacks. And the sweeping slurs of a very
> fine
> community.

Amen!

The innuendos and tone of this thread clash with everything I have
experienced in this great community so far.

Sophie

Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>> The other problem with (L)GPL is the people who choose it. That's
>> because those people clearly want others to "share by default" and
>> have therefore a vested interest in the broadest possible application
>> of the "modification clauses".
>
> That's what you believe, Andreas, not the reason why most people choose
> LGPL.

Uh, so then what *is* the reason why most people choose LGPL? In
particular in an environment like Smalltalk which is muddy given that
you can change superclass can't protect from subclassing etc.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

On 25/03/2008, Jimmie Houchin <[hidden email]> wrote:

>  Why don't we quit speaking on behalf of those copyright
>  holders and let them speak for themselves. Time will tell where they
>  stand on this.

Quite.  My view exactly.  Had this happened from the outset, this
whole set of threads would never have appeared.

> Is it at the moment. Or is it a mistake which was made and has been
>  corrected.

I have only just become aware that a correction was in the air, much
less implemented.

>  You seem to wish to make his mistake the sole pivotal issue in this.

No.  I just want to make sure that the licensing of Swazoo is clearly
indicated as being LGPL from inception to date.  If that has already
happened, then smashing.  This kind of discussion has come up before,
and indeed I thought it had been resolved before, but sadly it came up
again out of the blue.  Really, I just want to make sure the current
situation is clear and that we can't slip back into some understanding
other than that Swazoo is currently under the LGPL.

So, lets get this resolved so we can move on.

Best regards,
    Bruce
--
Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills
http://www.openskills.org/

On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 8:52 AM, Bruce Badger <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  No, because he tried to do it by stealth and by infringing upon the
>  copyrights of others.  Janko never posted a "Should we move Swazoo to
>  MIT?" message to the Swazoo list, or anywhere else as far as I know.

Is it possible he knows the other original authors personally and
talks with them outside of the internet?

On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Paolo Bonzini <[hidden email]> wrote:
These fears, uncertainties and doubts are quite reasonable.  As
Andreas mentioned [1] and I alluded to [2], in the U.S. (at least) you
can not be sure how a seemingly clear license (much less a complex
one, like the LGPL) will actually be applied until it actually is.  In
court.  Your personal (and unqualified!) interpretation means
absolutely nothing, so I would appreciate it if you would stop talking
as if this is somehow a solved issue.  You could cause some
unsuspecting individual to put themselves at risk of litigation.

[1] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2008-March/127021.html
[2] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2008-March/126894.html

On 26/03/2008, Jason Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Is it possible he knows the other original authors personally and
>  talks with them outside of the internet?

Well, yes.  We know Janko and he knows us.

What was your point?

--
Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills
http://www.openskills.org/