[squeak-dev] Request for the foundation

stephane ducasse wrote:
> Here is what most of the people signed:

Indeed. That's what I signed, too. Says there, very first sentence:
   "is entered into as of __________________ (the “Effective Date”)"

>> I don't know what you signed but the Software Distribution Agreement
>> that I signed with VPRI had an effective date on it (every legal
>> document that I've ever signed had a date on it).
>
> I can imagine but I guess that most people signed the same as mine.

And I hope that most people read it more carefully than you did. I
certainly would not have signed any agreement that would give away my
rights in the future.

Given that 3.9 was released fall '06 and the agreements went out later
than that it's probably safe to assume that contributions to 3.8 and 3.9
are covered by it.

>>> Reading your answer it seems that the mess with Squeak license will
>>> never stop.
>>
>> The way to "stop it" (whatever that means) is to be explicit about it.
>> For example, require a one-liner in Mantis saying "fix contributed
>> under MIT license" by the person posting it.
>
> I think that we should pay attention to have such information not in the
> source code itself.

I think you are overreacting.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

stephane ducasse wrote:
> I have another question: where can I find the license of the code
> published here: http://jabberwocky.croquetproject.org:8889/

To be precise, there are multiple projects on the above site which may
have different licenses. However, for the core Croquet repositories
(Homebase, Tweak, Hedgehog, Contribs) all contributions have to be under
MIT. We do not accept any other license.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

Igor Stasenko wrote:
> On 23/03/2008, Andreas Raab <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> The way to "stop it" (whatever that means) is to be explicit about it.
>>  For example, require a one-liner in Mantis saying "fix contributed under
>>  MIT license" by the person posting it.
>>
>
> Do we really want to see non-MIT fixes in Mantis? :)

No. But I think it's important to be explicit about it until such a time
when it is understood that everything that goes up on Mantis is MIT. And
really, if you'd like to contribute to Squeak, is it too much asked to
throw in one line so that we know it's all good?

> I think, Mantis should state exclusively at front page, that all
> contributions are going under MIT. If people don't want their code to
> be released under it, they can either release as separate package or
> don't release it at all :)

True. But the problem is that Squeak in the past didn't use MIT and one
could rightfully argue that a submission was done in good faith under
the assumption it would be Squeak-L. To avoid this, and to educate
people about the license change I think asking for a one-line
clarification is a good way to make sure we have our house in order.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

On 24/03/2008, Andreas Raab <[hidden email]> wrote:
Seems like never ending story to me (while one people trying to fix
license issues, others can contribute code which can appear in release
in sneaky manner - via Mantis, mailing lists , ftp, wiki and other
public sources).
It looks like that we need to put a BIG BANNER everywhere: whenever
someone provides a code for squeak, be it in mantis, in wiki, on ftp ,
on mailing list it is assumed that given code provided under MIT
license, if not stated other exclusively. And we need to put this BIG
BANNER right now, otherwise this licensing swamp will never dry out.


>  Cheers,
>
>    - Andreas
>
>
>


--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

Andreas Raab a écrit :
Hi Andreas,
There are 70 issues reported by me, 5 being closed, most with proposed
tests and patch, and some contributions to issues not reported by me.
I am not even able to make a list of what i contributed to, and do not
know which ones are covered by VPRI agreement, and i don't care because
i want all to be under MIT.

One line is certainly not a problem.
But i hope you're asking one line for the whole contribution, not a one
line per mantis entry, otherwise it's becoming ridiculous.


Nicolas

> By looking at the accompanying licenses. I think it's fair to assume
> that explicit contributions (such as when posted to Mantis) can be
> assumed to be public domain and as such can be distributed under the MIT
> license.

Not from Europeans.  In many European countries public domain does not
even exist.  If possible, you should add a note on the attachment form
for Mantis stating the license for every attachment added to Mantis,
similar to how Wikipedia does it.

Paolo

I was under the impression (but thus was quite a while ago and I have  
truly been rather busy over the last few years) that we asked the folk  
running MC and squeaksource etc to put up prominent announcements so  
that everyone would understand that submitting any code meant you were  
offering it under an MIT license.

At the very least we ought to have MIT as the default when submitting  
along with prominent warning that nothing under any 'lesser' license  
could be accepted by harvester for inclusion into the image.

As I said above, I am under the impression that we had already  
arranged this. Since I'm away from home on a very limited net access  
regime I can't exactly double check and anyone telling me I'm wrong on  
the basis of mere evidence will get a loud raspberry.

tim
--
tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
Two wrongs are only the beginning.

I think this is one of the most important responsibilities that the board has (sorting out the contribution process and maintaining records of licenses, etc).  A number of projects require every contributor to mail in a signed contributor form (that states the license under which the software is being contributed).  Those papers are usually maintained in a vault somewhere.

A more ideal solution would be an electronic signature system where one signs a secure hash of the source code along with a statement of the license terms.  If the process is well understood and documented, the records organized and retained, and the public keys of the contributors reasonably verified to be authentic, I imagine one could argue successfully for a judge or jury that the licenses really are as advertised.  But, I think I'd still want to get the opinion of a tech savvy lawyer first.  And, it might be wise to use both both mechanisms (digital and paper) until there is a consensus that the digital method is on sound legal footing.

- Stephen

Hi tim

I did not ask this question to put the mess. I'm perfectly happy with  
what you wrote. Now I realized that I made a lot of assumptions about  
what is normal to think that I want to make sure.

So I would love to have an advice on how to do it well once for all. I  
read the apache indiviual license agreement to understand how they did  
it. I would like to have a public statement from the voice of the  
foundation.

Stef

On Mar 24, 2008, at 3:04 PM, tim Rowledge wrote:

>
> Given that 3.9 was released fall '06 and the agreements went out  
> later than that it's probably safe to assume that contributions to  
> 3.8 and 3.9 are covered by it.

Who should we ask to be sure?
I would like the foundation to answer that point.


>>>>
>> I think that we should pay attention to have such information not  
>> in the source code itself.
>
> I think you are overreacting.

May be but I do not like the idea that the code license is stated in a  
funny way (posted on bug tracking system
that may be replaced by another one). I just want to understand how we  
can fix that once the image is fully MIT.
We should keep our energy for other more exciting topics.

Stef

Excellent!
I wanted to have a clear statement that I can look/take the code  
without problem

Stef

Igor for me too :) You cannot believe for how times I'm waiting for a  
fully MIT based image.
Now if the squeakfoundation tells us that having such banner solve the  
problems
for the future versions. Great. Now I want to know.

Stef

stephane ducasse wrote:
>> Given that 3.9 was released fall '06 and the agreements went out later
>> than that it's probably safe to assume that contributions to 3.8 and
>> 3.9 are covered by it.
>
> Who should we ask to be sure?

The judge proceeding over the case.

> I would like the foundation to answer that point.

It's impossible to answer any matter of law without having a judge rule
on it. You can ask your friendly neighborhood lawyer to give you advice
on the matter but the first thing he'll tell you is that there is no way
"to be sure" - and that's only partly because he's making his money off
your uncertainty ;-)

Personally, I feel save enough by the agreement not to worry about it.
What evidence is there that any of it is *not* under MIT? You can't
conclusively proof that legally everything is protected well enough to
hold up in court but in absence of *any* evidence to the contrary I feel
safe enough about it. Because, if someone stands up and says "I didn't
want this to be under MIT" it can be ripped out in an instant.

Cheers,
   - Andreas