[squeak-dev] On the swazoo list

On the Swazoo list, from which I have been excluded, Janko is asking
the question of whether Swazoo should be re licensed under the MIT
license rather than the LGPL.

Regardless of the outcome of this, the current status is that Swazoo
is under the LGPL.  Only new versions of Swazoo would be affected by
any "relicense" and only then if all code contributed by people who
were not included in the discussion were removed.  So far, the
discussion does not appear to include any of the other original
contributors to Swazoo.

Clearly, as I am excluded from the discussion there can be no question
of any of my code being subject to any "decisions" on the swazoo list.
 The same would apply to any other contributor too.  Copyright to the
rescue.

You know, I do agree that there needs to be clarity in licensing.
With Swazoo, I thought we had that, since from day one it has been
under the LGPL which I thought was a pretty open license (I share
Paolo's view on that).  But this idea of grabbing other people code
and claiming that it is licensed as you please is not what I signed up
for. It looks like some kind of software mugging from where I sit.

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

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Bruce Badger <[hidden email]> wrote:
Do you any links to the relevant discussion (especially the "day one"
part)?  Because while Janko's actions are certainly.... non-optimal,
he seems to indicate the exact opposite, i.e. that they didn't really
have a license, then you came and suggested it was LGPL and now claim
it conclusively is.  So from his description it sounds like an attempt
at forcing the software into LGPL simply by "injecting" your own LGPL
code into it.  Which would, of course, be every bit as reprehensible
as the "software mugging" you describe.

On 24/03/2008, Jason Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Do you any links to the relevant discussion (especially the "day one"
>  part)?

When the SourceForge projet was set up, LGPL was the license on the
tin.  It only changed two days ago.  Nobody has admitted to doing
that.  You'll note that I have made reference to the source forge
project on a number of occasions on this list and on cls.  Also
discussions on cls date back to 2000 and indicate the LGPL license.

Ah!  The wayback machine to the rescue:
http://web.archive.org/web/20020211054006/http://sourceforge.net/projects/swazoo/

Not quite 2000, but you can see that from that every version of the
page over many years clearly showed LGPL.  Note too that I was not a
project admin, so I had no way of setting the license or changing it.

I chose to work with the Swazoo HTTP server *because* it was under the
LGPL.  Had I not found such an HTTP server I would have started from
scratch as I have done for several other of my libraries (all of which
are under the LGPL).

>  Because while Janko's actions are certainly.... non-optimal,
>  he seems to indicate the exact opposite, i.e. that they didn't really
>  have a license, then you came and suggested it was LGPL and now claim
>  it conclusively is.

I think it would be rather disingenuous of Janko to suggest that I
have suddenly started saying that Swazoo is under the LGPL.  Janko's
MIT conversion is altogether far more sudden.

>  So from his description it sounds like an attempt
>  at forcing the software into LGPL simply by "injecting" your own LGPL
>  code into it.  Which would, of course, be every bit as reprehensible
>  as the "software mugging" you describe.

If you look at the version history of Swazoo in the Cincom public
Store and at the archive of the Swazoo mailing list you'll see that I
wasn't just injecting a bit of code here and there :-)

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

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Bruce Badger <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  Ah!  The wayback machine to the rescue:
>  http://web.archive.org/web/20020211054006/http://sourceforge.net/projects/swazoo/
>
>  Not quite 2000, but you can see that from that every version of the
>  page over many years clearly showed LGPL.  Note too that I was not a
>  project admin, so I had no way of setting the license or changing it.

Great, thanks.  I'll look at this.

>  I think it would be rather disingenuous of Janko to suggest that I
>  have suddenly started saying that Swazoo is under the LGPL.  Janko's
>  MIT conversion is altogether far more sudden.

Well, I don't want to put words in his mouth.  That's just how I
interpreted his responses.

(this is the best I could find:
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2008-March/126849.html
    but I thought he said something closer to my summarization.  I
can't seem to find it though).

>  >  So from his description it sounds like an attempt
>  >  at forcing the software into LGPL simply by "injecting" your own LGPL
>  >  code into it.  Which would, of course, be every bit as reprehensible
>  >  as the "software mugging" you describe.
>
>  If you look at the version history of Swazoo in the Cincom public
>  Store and at the archive of the Swazoo mailing list you'll see that I
>  wasn't just injecting a bit of code here and there :-)

In the theoretical situation I described, the amount of code wouldn't
matter.  It would be someone contributing a bunch of code under a
different license and trying to do a "hostile take-over".

You assume that everyone is satisfied with MIT, and that "injecting"
everything but MIT is considered hostile (oversimplifying -- I grant you
that).

But some people might disagree with that, especially if they have
contributed time to a project and would like to get back improvements to
that project (but not code *using* it).  MIT does not give you that, and
I can see why Bruce would like his Swazoo code to stay under the license
he thought Swazoo was being released under.

I don't think I'll have anything else to say on this issue.  Let's
remember it of an example of how *not* to deal with licensing; probably
something worse than having to live with a license you don't like.

Paolo

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Bruce Badger <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  When the SourceForge projet was set up, LGPL was the license on the
>  tin.  It only changed two days ago.  Nobody has admitted to doing
>  that.  You'll note that I have made reference to the source forge
>  project on a number of occasions on this list and on cls.  Also
>  discussions on cls date back to 2000 and indicate the LGPL license.
>
>  Ah!  The wayback machine to the rescue:
>  http://web.archive.org/web/20020211054006/http://sourceforge.net/projects/swazoo/

Hrm, I had a look at this and while I see the license clearly says
"LGPL" I also see that Janko is is on the core list of developers.  I
clicked on the total list of developers and didn't see your name.

So for me this isn't totally conclusive.  What licenses could one
indicate on a Sourceforge project back then?  Wasn't it a "(L)GPL"
only site?

I think the mailing list archives would be more conclusive.

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 8:50 PM, Paolo Bonzini <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  You assume that everyone is satisfied with MIT, and that "injecting"
>  everything but MIT is considered hostile (oversimplifying -- I grant you
>  that).
>
>  But some people might disagree with that,

I don't assume that.  I don't care if they are satisfied or not.  If
you don't like my license don't contribute to my code.  Contributing
to my code base with some other license and then trying to do some
kind of coup to get it switched is absolutely a hostile act.

>especially if they have
>  contributed time to a project and would like to get back improvements to
>  that project (but not code *using* it).  MIT does not give you that, and
>  I can see why Bruce would like his Swazoo code to stay under the license
>  he thought Swazoo was being released under.

This is your opinion.  The companies I have worked for wont touch GPL
code at all.  With MIT, they may not give the change back, but there
is a chance they will and no matter how small the chance it is more
then a license that they simply wont touch in the first place.

>
>  I don't think I'll have anything else to say on this issue.  Let's
>  remember it of an example of how *not* to deal with licensing; probably
>  something worse than having to live with a license you don't like.

Here we definitely agree.

Jason,

I seem to have picked up quite a burden here.  I must answer all your
questions and satisfy your demands for proof with "totally conclusive"
evidence?  Why?  I think the sources of information I have already
linked to would answer all your questions.  You tone makes me think
you are trying to trip me up and gather information to support making
my code be forcibly licensed as MIT, which I don't want.

But as they say, hope for the best ...

I can not prove to you what my intent was while I was working to
improve the Swazoo HTTP server, but I refer you to the version control
history and the mailing lists so you can draw your own conclusions.  I
assert that I started work on Swazoo because it was licensed under the
LGPL and contributed work under that license in good faith.  I think
my track record backs me up here.

Re SourceForge, I don't have the complete list of licenses that could
be selected for projects on SourceForge back in 2000, but I'm sure you
can see some (most, all?) of the choices via the wayback machine if
you care to look.  FWIW I'm sure they had a policy of including the
OSI approved licenses even then and I recall setting up a project and
seeing quite a few licences to choose from (of cource, I chose the
LGPL for my library project).

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

Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Here is the philosophical difference.

Neither license prohibits contributing improvements back to the project.
GPL/LGPL require it, MIT does not.

However, you can not demonstrate based on any MIT/BSD licensed project
that those licenses are unsuccessful at having contributors contribute
improvements back to the projects. On the contrary, it is a culture of
giving, not the law which compels people to contribute to a project.
People who are inclined to give back do so because of choice.

Squeak, BSD, PostgreSQL, and many other such large projects do just fine
with MIT type licensing. And everyone of there contributors works just
as hard as anybody working on a GPL/LGPL project. Their authors do not
value their work any less, nor do they appreciate the contributions back
any less than their GPL/LGPL counterparts.

People who aren't givers just simply either choose something other than
GPL/LGPL projects, or simply ignore the license altogether. Regardless
the project is not advantaged by them at all regardless of the license.
And those that are givers, give regardless of being compelled by law or not.

I would much prefer a culture of giving because people want to give,
than because the letter of the law compels them to give. If I am
contributing code, I much prefer the MIT license, because I prefer the
greater liberties is allows the users of the code.

I would much prefer a culture of giving because people want to give,
than because the letter of the law compels them to give.

Just my opinion, but then I guess I'm one of those MIT/BSD
fundamentalist. ;)

Jimmie

> Hrm, I had a look at this and while I see the license clearly says
> "LGPL" I also see that Janko is is on the core list of developers.  I
> clicked on the total list of developers and didn't see your name.

This is in favor of Bruce actually.  A contributor expects to trust what
the site says.

> So for me this isn't totally conclusive.  What licenses could one
> indicate on a Sourceforge project back then?  Wasn't it a "(L)GPL"
> only site?

This would seem very strange to me.  At the very least a "Other" should
be there.  Why do you say "wasn't it"?  Do you have any recollection or
evidence of that?

Paolo

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 9:30 PM, Paolo Bonzini <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  This would seem very strange to me.  At the very least a "Other" should
>  be there.  Why do you say "wasn't it"?  Do you have any recollection or
>  evidence of that?
>
>  Paolo

I have an extremely foggy recollection of wanting to put a project on
there but seeing that restriction.  But it is very foggy, which is why
I'm asking.

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Bruce Badger <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Jason,
>
>  I seem to have picked up quite a burden here.  I must answer all your
>  questions and satisfy your demands for proof with "totally conclusive"
>  evidence?

You don't have to do anything.  But you present a mail here clearly to
appeal to the community.  If you want my sympathy I want to see what
you're talking about. :)  You don't have to prove anything to me.  I
can go dig around in the mail list archives myself, I was just hoping
you would give a pointer to start from.

>Why?  I think the sources of information I have already
>  linked to would answer all your questions.  You tone makes me think
>  you are trying to trip me up and gather information to support making
>  my code be forcibly licensed as MIT, which I don't want.

I explained why I didn't personally find the link you gave me
conclusive.  And you are being a bit paranoid about me "forcing" you
to do anything.  It's not my license.  I just like the truth, what
ever it is, to be on the table.  There appears to be a disagreement
between your view and Janko's.  I didn't ask Janko anything because he
hasn't posted to this thread.

>  I can not prove to you what my intent was while I was working to
>  improve the Swazoo HTTP server, but I refer you to the version control
>  history and the mailing lists so you can draw your own conclusions.

What does your intention have to do with it?  I'm quite certain your
intention was for the code to be LGPL.

> I
>  assert that I started work on Swazoo because it was licensed under the
>  LGPL and contributed work under that license in good faith.  I think
>  my track record backs me up here.

I believe you.  But the other guys may have been working under good
faith that it *wasn't* LGPL.

>  Re SourceForge, I don't have the complete list of licenses that could
>  be selected for projects on SourceForge back in 2000, but I'm sure you
>  can see some (most, all?) of the choices via the wayback machine if
>  you care to look.

Good idea, I should have thought of that. :)

>  FWIW I'm sure they had a policy of including the
>  OSI approved licenses even then and I recall setting up a project and
>  seeing quite a few licences to choose from (of cource, I chose the
>  LGPL for my library project).

Ok, well that's why I asked: because I didn't remember (but I thought
there was something about this).

Bruce,

Bruce Badger wrote:

> On the Swazoo list, from which I have been excluded, Janko is asking
> the question of whether Swazoo should be re licensed under the MIT
> license rather than the LGPL.

Please, come to the reason. You were excluded from the list? By someone
other? What if you maybe unsubscribed by yourself when you made Hyper
fork? Please, rather cool down and don't accuse others for deeds you
did. And as you know it is not your first time.

For others, I'm preparing a history of Swazoo and cooperation with
Bruce, which not started in 2000 when Swazoo was born, but in 09 2003,
when Bruce did his fork on Cincom Public Repository, where Swazoo first
appeared in 03 2002. But more in separate post.

Janko


--
Janko Mivšek
AIDA/Web
Smalltalk Web Application Server
http://www.aidaweb.si

On 24/03/2008, Jason Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:
What other guys?  Anyone who went to the source forge project at any
time from when it was first established until until just a couple of
days ago would see that Swazoo was under the LGPL.

What evidence do you have that people thought otherwise, and how did
these other people form their view?

You know, I really thought the error on the Squeak source code system
was just a typo and this would be resolved with an "Oops, sorry" and
the record would be corrected and that would be that.

What we seem to have is a deliberate effort to change the licensing of
Swazoo from LGPL to MIT by stealth.  The project started in 2000 with
an explicit statement that it was under the LGPL (see the wayback
machine) but sometime recently, with no discussion with the copyright
holders someone seems to have introduced the idea that the licensing
was not so clear, and that any license will do, and that, oh, we can
just pick the MIT licence (LGPL?  What's that?).

I see now that this situation is a real mess.  But that is not of my
doing.  I seek the same consistency and clarity in licensing that
others on this list have (rightly in my view) said is important.  I
wish to see the Swazoo project correctly documented as being under the
LGPL.

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

On 24/03/2008, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Please, come to the reason.

Janko, reason shows that Swazoo is under the LGPL.  All the evidence
supports this.  What evidence do you have that counters this?

> You were excluded from the list?

So it appears, and not by myself either.

>  For others, I'm preparing a history of Swazoo and cooperation with
>  Bruce

I am involved in no such history project.  This is the first I have
head of your new project Janko and I have not agreed to be part of it.

> which not started in 2000 when Swazoo was born, but in 09 2003,

Look here on the reliable history project called the Wayback machine:

http://web.archive.org/web/20020211054006/http://sourceforge.net/projects/swazoo/

Note that a) the Swazoo project was established on 31st March 2000 b)
the project is under the LGPL.

Janko, could you please stop messing with my copyright material and
the copyright material of other people.  Please revert the sourceforge
page to show the correct license.  Frankly I think you should have
your project admin rights on SourceForge revoked after this display,
once you have cleared up the mess.

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

Bruce Badger wrote:

> Janko, could you please stop messing with my copyright material and
> the copyright material of other people.  Please revert the sourceforge
> page to show the correct license.  Frankly I think you should have
> your project admin rights on SourceForge revoked after this display,
> once you have cleared up the mess.

I'm coming with a contact to original authors who will decide of the
license of Swazoo, not you. And to avoid such accusations like messing
of copyright material of you and the other people (which other people?),
I'll propose them that in Swazoo 3.0 your code is removed and therefore
a problem forever solved.

Janko


--
Janko Mivšek
AIDA/Web
Smalltalk Web Application Server
http://www.aidaweb.si

On 25/03/2008, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Bruce Badger wrote:

> I'm coming with a contact to original authors who will decide of the
>  license of Swazoo, not you.

I decide upon the licensing of my copyright material, Janko.

>  I'll propose them that in Swazoo 3.0 your code is removed and therefore
>  a problem forever solved.

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.

What a mess you have made, Janko.  Why didn't you just leave Swazoo
under the LGPL?

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

Bruce, I already proposed that 2.x licenses are LGPL but I'm now firm
with a decision to propose a removal of your code in 3.0. To late Bruce,
sorry.

Janko

Bruce Badger wrote:
--
Janko Mivšek
AIDA/Web
Smalltalk Web Application Server
http://www.aidaweb.si

Bruce Badger wrote:
> On 25/03/2008, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Bruce Badger wrote:
>
>> I'm coming with a contact to original authors who will decide of the
>>  license of Swazoo, not you.
>
> I decide upon the licensing of my copyright material, Janko.

He never said otherwise.

Yes, your insistence on your code remaining LGPL does affect the current
codebase. But that does not limit the rights of all the other
contributors should they choose to relicense their code under MIT. Yes,
the current distribution of Swazoo 2.x will remain LGPL. But you don't
have the right to hold hostage future versions simply because you prefer
the LGPL and not MIT.

>>  I'll propose them that in Swazoo 3.0 your code is removed and therefore
>>  a problem forever solved.
>
> 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 after you disputed the right of it being
changed. And above he says he is going to contact the authors. 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.

> 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. A reasonable thing to do. This isn't
just Swazoo. He to my understanding relicensing his own project AIDA/Web
from LGPL to MIT for the same reasons. (Forgive me Janko if I misspeak)
He isn't anti-LGPL, though many of us here aren't favorable to it in the
context of Squeak.

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.

In my view it isn't he that is making the mess, but you. He is trying to
work with the broader Squeak community, and you are not.

Yes, he may have made a mistake in making errant statements about
changing it MIT without permissions. But with regards to the future
directions, he is not making a mess, but rather cleaning one up.

My opinion, but I don't think I'm alone.

Jimmie

> 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.

Paolo