[squeak-dev] Request for the foundation

Hi guys

I would like to get the official list of persons that signed the MIT  
license release for Squeak.
We should get that list officially posted so that user of packages can  
get the garantee
that the code is under MIT.

Stef

+1. To me (and I think not only me) will be important to have this level of
transparence.

        cheers,

Sebastian Sastre

That makes no sense. The agreement was exclusively for past
contributions to the image and did explicitly not cover external
packages or future contributions.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

stephane ducasse wrote:

Andreas Raab a écrit :
I do not feel like putting a license statement in each and every .cs i
upload for patching the kernel. These problems are becoming quite boring.

There could be a clear message stating that publishing code on mantis
implies MIT license, unless explicitely specified.

For external packages, this is different, SqueakMap has all what is
needed to clearly state the license, squeak source too. It's a less
boring operation than on mantis, because you do it once for the whole
package, not for every single patch.

Nicolas

nicolas cellier wrote: I suggested a while ago that we could make license information a part of
the object system. I'm not sure how to implement that though ;-)
Karl

On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 08:00:30AM +0100, karl wrote:
> I suggested a while ago that we could make license information a part of
> the object system. I'm not sure how to implement that though ;-)

Allow arbitrary properties to be attached to CompiledMethods.
Spoon may already do this.

--
Matthew Fulmer -- http://mtfulmer.wordpress.com/

What past contributions? When does it stop?
There is no date nor versions mentioned on the paper I signed.
So why 3.8 and not 3.9 would be covered by my signature
If edgar harvested code of damien (which he did) and that code is not  
in a separate package
where do I know that the license of damien for this piece of code is  
MIT if this is not the document
that viewpoints received?
So what is the process to know which piece of code is under which  
license?
Reading your answer it seems that the mess with Squeak license will  
never stop.
May be some people have interest at the end in this cool situation.

Stef


On Mar 22, 2008, at 8:50 PM, Andreas Raab wrote:

stephane ducasse wrote:
> What past contributions? When does it stop?
> There is no date nor versions mentioned on the paper I signed.

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).

> So why 3.8 and not 3.9 would be covered by my signature
> If edgar harvested code of damien (which he did) and that code is not in
> a separate package
> where do I know that the license of damien for this piece of code is MIT
> if this is not the document that viewpoints received?

You don't unless he says so.

> So what is the process to know which piece of code is under which license?

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. However, just because I signed the agreement with VPRI in the
past doesn't mean that all the code that I may write in the future is
under MIT.

> 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.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

On 23/03/2008, Andreas Raab <[hidden email]> wrote:
Do we really want to see non-MIT fixes in Mantis? :)
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 :)

>  Cheers,
>
>    - Andreas
>
>
>


--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

Here is what most of the people signed:

SOFTWARE DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT
This Distribution Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into as of  
__________________
(the “Effective Date”) by and between ______________________________  
(“Supplier”), whose
address is  
____________________________________________________________________
and Viewpoints Research Institute, Inc., a California nonprofit  
institution with its principal place
of business at 1209 Grand Central Avenue,  Glendale, CA 91201  
(“Distributor”).  Together,
Distributor and Supplier are referred to herein as the “Parties” and  
each individually as a “Party.”

The Parties agree that Supplier has contributed source code (the  
“Supplier’s Code”) for
the open source media authoring software known as “Squeak” (the  
“Software”), and that
Supplier retains all rights in and to Supplier’s Code, aside from the  
rights expressly granted to
Distributor in this Agreement.  The Parties acknowledge that the  
Software in its entirety is a
collective work containing source code contributions from several  
authors, and that Supplier’s
Code is only a small component part of the Software work as a whole.

Supplier hereby grants Distributor a perpetual, irrevocable, non-
exclusive, royalty-free,
worldwide license to distribute the Software, and specifically the  
Supplier’s Code therein, to end
users, subject to the license agreement commonly known as the “MIT  
License” which is
provided at the following URL:

  <http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php>.


       SUPPLIER


There is no version mentioned, no date.
So my question still holds and I would like the squeakfoundation to  
give a clear answer.

>>
> 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.

sure
Now I want to know what is the situation with code that was harvested  
in 3.8, 3.9. 3.10 and further on.

>> 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.

Stef

Sure

> Do we really want to see non-MIT fixes in Mantis? :)

No
Now is it "legal" to say that?

> 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 :

I think that each package should have a license clearly stated as part  
of its documentation.

Stef

The website says the following: http://www.squeak.org/SqueakLicense
So this means that 3.9, 3.10 and others are not covered! Will the  
foundation do something about that?

Stef

Andreas

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

I want to know what is the impact of reusing some of your fixes.

Stef

At this rate, you will definitely need to start a "sqeak-legal" list...!

On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 3:26 PM, stephane ducasse
<[hidden email]> wrote:
I suppose that covered code is author specific - till the signature
date. And because the SqueakL was still the main project license, new
posts are under this license :-(
So it seems that we will have to collect new agreements...
We need the list that Stef requested with signature dates.

-- Pavel

On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 04:54:31PM +0100, Pavel Krivanek wrote:
I'll bring this up at the meeting tomorrow. Stef, you are
welcome to come:
http://installer.pbwiki.org/MeetingNotes004

This is a public meeting on the #squeak IRC channel

--
Matthew Fulmer -- http://mtfulmer.wordpress.com/

Hi--

      Karl writes:

 > I suggested a while ago that we could make license information a part
 > of the object system. I'm not sure how to implement that though ;-)

      Matthew responds:

 > Allow arbitrary properties to be attached to CompiledMethods. Spoon
 > may already do this.

      Spoon addresses method, class, and module licensing information
explicitly in the forthcoming 2a13 release (with methods licensable at
the source-code level with character granularity and at the instruction
level with instruction granularity). The licenses themselves are also
objects with behavior (so that one can specify the effects of mixing
licenses, etc.). This stuff is all part of Spoon's history system (an
object-based replacement for the sources and changes files).

      Please feel free to discuss this stuff with me in real time on the
#spoon IRC channel at irc.freenode.net.


      thanks,

-C

--
Craig Latta
improvisational musical informaticist
www.netjam.org
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]

Hi Stef--

 > There is no version mentioned, no date.

      There is an Effective Date, so that the agreement applies to the
contributions made by the signer through that date. A list of signers is
available at [1]. The board does not have a list of the Effective Dates;
my expectation is that we will get copies of all the signed agreements,
for our counsel at the Software Freedom Conservancy to retain and for
our own reference.

      It is up to us to decide how to treat contributions made by a
person after their Effective Date. The board has not yet made a final
decision about this. I will bring it up at the next meeting, on 2008-04-02.


      thanks,

-C

[1] http://netjam.org/squeak/contributors

--
Craig Latta
improvisational musical informaticist
www.netjam.org
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]

http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/6016


stephane ducasse a écrit :

Andreas Raab a écrit :
> That makes no sense. The agreement was exclusively for past
> contributions to the image and did explicitly not cover external
> packages or future contributions.

It depends on how you perceive Squeak.
I am guessing Steph is perceiving Squeak in a modularisation process,
where class categories as Etoys are removed from the image and provided
as external packages. In that case it makes perfectly sense.

It will be helpful if we could get a little more light on the
relicensing effort. Currently, I have the feeling we are stuck, but may
be this is a misinterpretation because of lack of information, from my
unability to read regularly the list or my lack of understanding.

Hilaire