[squeak-dev] Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?
Locked
123456
123456
Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?
 
|
Bruce,
First, this discussion is moved to Swazoo mailing list now, second, until others (specially original authors) don't say their opinion, Swazoo license should stay undecided and third, from 2006 discussion I would say that it is you who started a confusion deciding that Swazoo is LGPL. All my fault is that I didn't react then. But of course this don't mean that Swazoo is LGPL now. It can be v2.x because of your code, but we original authors will decide for 3.0, which license will be, not you. Best regards Janko Bruce Badger wrote: > On 24/03/2008, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Jason Johnson wrote: >> > Janko. A while back he was laughing at us for worrying about this >> > "silly license nonsense". >> >> I'm personally still thinking the same, after all that thread even more! >> >> First, this is not my problem in my part of the world, where I am as an >> author protected by default. > > Janko, > > Did you make the change to SourceForge to change the listed license > from LGPLto MIT? > > Did you lead people in the Squeak community to think that Swazoo was > under the MIT license? > > Are you now willing to help clear up the confusion caused by incorrect > documentation suggesting that Swaoo is under MIT rather than LGPL? > > Thanks > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -- Janko Mivšek AIDA/Web Smalltalk Web Application Server http://www.aidaweb.si |
Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?
|
|
Janko,
Could you point to any reference, any at all, that shows that Swazoo was moved under the MIT license from the LGPL? I don't think you can. I guess it is good that at last you have decided to start discussing this matter on the Swazoo list, but until you have that agreement from developers (and my sense is that you will not get it) then Swazoo is under the LGPL, But, I thought you didn't care. On 24/03/2008, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote: > Bruce, > > First, this discussion is moved to Swazoo mailing list now, second, > until others (specially original authors) don't say their opinion, > Swazoo license should stay undecided and third, from 2006 discussion I > would say that it is you who started a confusion deciding that Swazoo is > LGPL. All my fault is that I didn't react then. But of course this don't > mean that Swazoo is LGPL now. It can be v2.x because of your code, but > we original authors will decide for 3.0, which license will be, not you. > > Best regards > > Janko > > > > Bruce Badger wrote: > > On 24/03/2008, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> Jason Johnson wrote: > >> > Janko. A while back he was laughing at us for worrying about this > >> > "silly license nonsense". > >> > >> I'm personally still thinking the same, after all that thread even more! > >> > >> First, this is not my problem in my part of the world, where I am as an > >> author protected by default. > > > > Janko, > > > > Did you make the change to SourceForge to change the listed license > > from LGPLto MIT? > > > > Did you lead people in the Squeak community to think that Swazoo was > > under the MIT license? > > > > Are you now willing to help clear up the confusion caused by incorrect > > documentation suggesting that Swaoo is under MIT rather than LGPL? > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > -- > Janko Mivšek > AIDA/Web > Smalltalk Web Application Server > http://www.aidaweb.si > > -- Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills http://www.openskills.org/ |
Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?
|
|
In reply to this post by Janko Mivšek
On 24/03/2008, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Bruce, > > First, this discussion is moved to Swazoo mailing list And I see that you have now excluded me from that list. Amazing. So I am not allowed into the discussion about licensing my own copyright material? This situation is absolutely ridiculous. No matter what your views on licenses are, surely any reasonable person can see that this is an unreasonable situation. -- Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills http://www.openskills.org/ |
Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?
|
|
2008/3/24, Bruce Badger <[hidden email]>:
> On 24/03/2008, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > Bruce, > > > > First, this discussion is moved to Swazoo mailing list > > > And I see that you have now excluded me from that list. Amazing. > > So I am not allowed into the discussion about licensing my own > copyright material? > > This situation is absolutely ridiculous. > > No matter what your views on licenses are, surely any reasonable > person can see that this is an unreasonable situation. to make sure they follow them. Cheers Philippe |
Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?
|
|
In reply to this post by Janko Mivšek
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 9:31 AM, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote: First, this is not my problem in my part of the world, where I am as an Janko, Be careful with that...if that means the same thing as what it means in the US (where author's are also "protected by default"), then you may be mis-interpreting things. In the US, all authors are afforded copyright protection regardless of whether or not you include any copyright notice or license terms with your work. I *think* those copyright terms extend for the life of the author+70 years for individuals under current US law. If you were subject to that law, it would mean that by default, only you (and your estate after death) hold the "copy rights" to anything you author until 70 years after your death. That's why explicit licensing that grants copy rights is important (at least in the US). There isn't even a mechanism to declare something you author to be in the public domain (that only happens by expiration of copy rights...though I suspect a lawyer might be able to successfully argue that someone offering something "in the public domain" is effectively offering that work under a license consistent with the meaning of "public domain"). I think the best open source licenses are the ones that are as simple and clear as possible. The more complicated a license, the more you'll have nauseating threads like this one (and fewer words means less opportunity for debate about the meaning of those words). - Stephen |
Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?
|
|
In reply to this post by Taun Chapman
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Taun Chapman <[hidden email]> wrote:
As an ignorant lurker, this has been a quite amazing 49 posts thread. Almost nothing relevant to the original issue. +1 (or if I lived in Chicago, +1 +1 +1 +1) |
[squeak-dev] please respect copyright holders (Re: Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?)
|
|
In reply to this post by Janko Mivšek
Janko,
I request that you do the right thing here and respect and implement the correction being provided to you by at least one major copyright holder, without delay. Licensing clarity matters. A good maintainer will take care to represent the creators' license(s) accurately. This need not interfere with your discussion of whether/how/if/why to change the license in future, but that's a separate issue. Thank you in advance. -Simon Michael |
Re: [squeak-dev] please respect copyright holders (Re: Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?)
|
|
>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Michael <[hidden email]> writes:
Simon> I request that you do the right thing here and respect and implement Simon> the correction being provided to you by at least one major copyright Simon> holder, without delay. Licensing clarity matters. A good maintainer Simon> will take care to represent the creators' license(s) accurately. Simon> This need not interfere with your discussion of whether/how/if/why to Simon> change the license in future, but that's a separate issue. I agree. We should err in the direction of the more restrictive (LGPL) license for the moment. If at a later time we can separate the contributions under the more general MIT license from the more restrictive LGPL license, we should mark it appropriately. Clearly, my personal opinion is that Swazoo should be under the MIT, so that I can use it for commercial reselling and have a *choice* to contribute back what I *can* when I build stuff for customers. But that doesn't detract from me supporting that someone else wants their work clearly marked as LGPL. -- 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! |
Re: [squeak-dev] Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?
|
|
In reply to this post by Janko Mivšek
Janko Mivšek wrote:
> > Just changed to MIT on squeakforge, to please all license > fundamentalists out there :) > Janko, I find this totally un-F-ing-believable. You cannot unilaterally change the license of code that others hold copyright to. Not here and not in your country. Elsewhere you say: "First, this is not my problem in my part of the world, where I am as an author protected by default." You'd guess that a grown-up would reciprocate this protection: The code authored by Bruce is protected by copyright too you know. You do not have the authority to change the license on *his* code without his consent. All the whining about Bruce hurting the community because he hasn't (yet?) released his code under MIT has *nothing* to do with your illegal acts. I find it silly that most of this thread is about bashing the LGPL instead of bashing your behavior. I understand you have also excluded Bruce from discussions about relicensing his code - how sick can you get? Do you realize you are /forcing/ Bruce's hand now? He'll have to decide between letting him either be screwed "for the sake of the community" or send out S&D letters or DMCA take down requests to SourceForge and SqueakMap. You have found the perfect way to kill the reputation of both a project and yourself, and hurt the community as whole at the same time. I suggest you put the original licenses back up immediately, and decide to stay within the law from here on if you truly want to help the Smalltalk community. R - |
|
|
Just to cool down things... (I hope)
> > I understand you have also excluded Bruce from discussions about > relicensing his code - how sick can you get? He didn't do that (otherwise this means he had excluded/unregister him from the swazoo list). > > I suggest you put the original licenses back up immediately, and decide > to stay within the law from here on if you truly want to help the > Smalltalk community. This is done already (http://sourceforge.net/projects/swazoo/) as he told me yesterday on irc. Sure he should have said that on the list. It seems this was the main point of Bruce thread so now...I hope it's not too late and things will cool down... Cédrick |
Re: [squeak-dev] Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?
|
|
cdrick wrote:
> Just to cool down things... (I hope) I'm cool :-) > > >> I understand you have also excluded Bruce from discussions about >> relicensing his code - how sick can you get? > > He didn't do that (otherwise this means he had excluded/unregister him > from the swazoo list). From Bruce's post I gather that is what has happened, so that may need another look (hopefully it turns out to just be a technical issue). > >> I suggest you put the original licenses back up immediately, and decide >> to stay within the law from here on if you truly want to help the >> Smalltalk community. > > This is done already (http://sourceforge.net/projects/swazoo/) as he > told me yesterday on irc. Sure he should have said that on the list. > > It seems this was the main point of Bruce thread so now...I hope it's > not too late and things will cool down... I was appalled at the direction this thread took, it seemed centered around self-interest (paraphrasing: "we *have* to get MIT on Swazoo") rather than the obvious conclusion that Swazoo had entered illegal territory. Thanks for the notice, R - > > Cédrick > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > |
Re: [squeak-dev] Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?
|
|
In reply to this post by Reinout Heeck
Reinout Heeck wrote:
>> Just changed to MIT on squeakforge, to please all license >> fundamentalists out there :) >> > > Janko, > > I find this totally un-F-ing-believable. Reinout, please cool down. This change wasn't most reasonable thing I did, I admit, and it is changed back. About other thing, better read a whole thing before making such attacks and you will slowly see who is a really a bad guy here. Well, I know him personally and so I can even understand him, but here in public his consequences are things like your mail. And then you believe him that he was removed from Swazoo mailing list (which I think even he came to the reason and don't claim anymore). Of course now you think it was me who removed him, yes? Janko > You cannot unilaterally change the license of code that others hold > copyright to. Not here and not in your country. > > Elsewhere you say: > "First, this is not my problem in my part of the world, where I am as an > author protected by default." > You'd guess that a grown-up would reciprocate this protection: The code > authored by Bruce is protected by copyright too you know. You do not > have the authority to change the license on *his* code without his consent. > > All the whining about Bruce hurting the community because he hasn't > (yet?) released his code under MIT has *nothing* to do with your illegal > acts. I find it silly that most of this thread is about bashing the LGPL > instead of bashing your behavior. > > > I understand you have also excluded Bruce from discussions about > relicensing his code - how sick can you get? > > Do you realize you are /forcing/ Bruce's hand now? > > He'll have to decide between letting him either be screwed "for the sake > of the community" or send out S&D letters or DMCA take down requests to > SourceForge and SqueakMap. > > > > > You have found the perfect way to kill the reputation of both a project > and yourself, and hurt the community as whole at the same time. > > > I suggest you put the original licenses back up immediately, and decide > to stay within the law from here on if you truly want to help the > Smalltalk community. > > R > - > > -- Janko Mivšek AIDA/Web Smalltalk Web Application Server http://www.aidaweb.si |
Re: [squeak-dev] Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?
|
|
Janko Mivšek wrote:
> Reinout Heeck wrote: > >>> Just changed to MIT on squeakforge, to please all license >>> fundamentalists out there :) >>> >> >> Janko, >> >> I find this totally un-F-ing-believable. > > Reinout, please cool down. This change wasn't most reasonable thing I > did, I admit, and it is changed back. > > About other thing, better read a whole thing before making such attacks > and you will slowly see who is a really a bad guy here. Well, I know him > personally and so I can even understand him, but here in public his > consequences are things like your mail. I found the other threads (after I posted my first message) and read them now; fortunately some people there addressed my concerns too. I find it worrisome that you still think Bruce's actions elicited my mail, it is your actions that did. I also don't understand why you would call him a 'bad guy' here for being forced to defend his copyright. Reading the other threads didn't leave impression of badness. > And then you believe him that he > was removed from Swazoo mailing list (which I think even he came to the > reason and don't claim anymore). Of course now you think it was me who > removed him, yes? I held that for possible yes, given you already unilaterally changed the license - that's how reputation works. The important matter is of course whether he can now take part in the discussions there. > > Janko reply-to: set to my private email, hope the list server preserves that. R - |
Re: [squeak-dev] Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?
|
|
In reply to this post by cedreek
cdrick wrote:
> This is done already (http://sourceforge.net/projects/swazoo/) as he > told me yesterday on irc. Sure he should have said that on the list. > > It seems this was the main point of Bruce thread so now...I hope it's > not too late and things will cool down... Most funny thing is that all actually began with Swazoo licenses on SqueakMap, that's why Bruce started debate on this mailing list [1] and even more funny is that main Swazoo line there is actually LGPL [2], while Swazoo-HTTP, Swazoo-Listener and Swazoo-Server are MIT [3,4,5]. I don't see dates of submission on SqueakMap but I'm pretty sure that those later three are from code before first Bruce code is introduced in Swazoo as LGPL. There is therefore not his code in those three packages and I think he can't have right to claim anything. Well, to clear up and finally decide on licenses, that's needed and is on the way but belongs to another story. Best regards Janko [1]Swazoo is licensed under the LGPL, it says so right on the SourceForge project and it was on that basis that we did some work with it. And has been confirmed in discussions on cls in 2000 and more recently in 2006 ... yet in the Squeak Map package loader it is listed as having an MIT licence. It seems to have been mis-categorised in Squeak Map. How can this be fixed? http://www.nabble.com/-squeak-dev--Swazoo---LGPL-or-MIT--td16131213.html [2]http://map.squeak.org/package/ad2333df-0675-4a6d-8c5f-782c44946ff2 [3]http://map.squeak.org/package/0a5ade31-262b-4d8e-986c-53d1aa254e19 [4]http://map.squeak.org/package/844ef199-5c55-42cc-880b-38da65179b5f [5]http://map.squeak.org/package/00d8b2c4-9a53-4784-a412-26da5c7246d0 -- Janko Mivšek AIDA/Web Smalltalk Web Application Server http://www.aidaweb.si |
Re: [squeak-dev] Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?
|
|
In reply to this post by Reinout Heeck
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 6:20 AM, Reinout Heeck <[hidden email]> wrote: I was appalled at the direction this thread took, it seemed centered Please, let's not be so quick to attribute to malice that which was probably just an honest mistake or momentary lapse in judgment. I think he's corrected the issue and that's the most important point. That said, I would like to understand Bruce's reluctance to make his contributions available under the MIT license. I think it safe to say that most people here prefer that license and that it's been established as the preferred license for squeak contributions. We should all respect Bruce's decision regarding his own code, but I would like to understand his thinking on the matter. - Stephen |
Re: [squeak-dev] Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?
|
|
> That said, I would like to understand Bruce's reluctance to make his
> contributions available under the MIT license. Because he doesn't want to? *shrug* Beyond that, I don't think it really matters. Bruce has his opinion on the topic, others disagree. I *highly* doubt anyone will be swayed from their position (as you might have noticed, license discussions tend to take on a rather religious tone among software developers), so I'm not sure it's worth starting up a debate that will, in all probability, lead nowhere. Brett. |
Re: [squeak-dev] Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?
|
|
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Brett Kosinski <[hidden email]> wrote:
I agree with you that if he doesn't want to, he doesn't want to. But given that people are considering expended a lot of work to work around and expunge his code, it's at least worth trying to convince Bruce of the merits of making his code available under MIT. It might save some people some avoidable work if Bruce can be convinced. - Stephen |
Re: [squeak-dev] Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?
|
|
In reply to this post by cedreek
On 25/03/2008, cdrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Just to cool down things... (I hope) Thanks :-) > This is done already (http://sourceforge.net/projects/swazoo/) as he > told me yesterday on irc. Sure he should have said that on the list. This is news to me. Thank you for pointing it out. > It seems this was the main point of Bruce thread so now...I hope it's > not too late and things will cool down. In fact, I started the thread because the entry in Squeak source showed Swazoo as being under MIT. SourceForge was actually changed (and changed back) during the discussion. Has the entry in Squeak source been updated too, do you know? Many thanks, Bruce -- Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills http://www.openskills.org/ |
Re: [squeak-dev] Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?
|
|
In reply to this post by Janko Mivšek
On 25/03/2008, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote:
> And then you believe him that he > was removed from Swazoo mailing list (which I think even he came to the > reason and don't claim anymore). Of course now you think it was me who > removed him, yes? Janko, I do appear to have been removed. I don't know how this happened and I didn't say I did, Could you please help me to get back on the list? -- Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills http://www.openskills.org/ |
Re: [squeak-dev] Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?
|
|
In reply to this post by Stephen Pair
On 25/03/2008, Stephen Pair <[hidden email]> wrote:
> That said, I would like to understand Bruce's reluctance to make his > contributions available under the MIT license. When the matter is raised for discussion on the Swazoo list (and when I have access to that list again) then we can start to discuss licensing. Prior to the start of this thread no suggestion of a license change had been made to my knowledge. And it's not about one copyright holder (viz me), it's about all contributors and copyright holders. For now we need to get things straight so we have a starting point for discussion. -- Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills http://www.openskills.org/ |
«
Return to Squeak - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |