[squeak-dev] Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?

Bruce Badger wrote:
But what lacks being straightened?

>From what I've seen everything has been restored as prior to the
mistake. Both on Squeak Map and SourceForge. Am I missing something that
prevents this from going forward?

Thanks.

Jimmie

Bruce Badger wrote:
Hmm, just checked and you actually are on the list, as bbadger at
openskills.com? Please try to send a test message from that address to
see, if it comes through.

JAnko



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

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

>  > For now we need to get things straight so we have a starting point for
>  > discussion.
>
> But what lacks being straightened?

Swazoo needs to me listed as LGPL in the Squeak source repository.
Perhaps this has already happened - I have not had time to check
today.  But you say it has in which case all is well there.

Also, I think we need Janko to acknowledge that Swazoo has been under
the LGPL from project inception to date.  I think this will remove any
possibility of the uncertainty about the Swazoo license cropping up
again.  Again, apologies if this has already happened in another
thread, I have not had time today to keep up.

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

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

>  > 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?
>
>
> Hmm, just checked and you actually are on the list, as bbadger at
>  openskills.com? Please try to send a test message from that address to
>  see, if it comes through.

Will do.  As this is resolved in principle perhaps we can deal with
this off-list?

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

On 25/03/2008, Jimmie Houchin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Bruce Badger wrote:
>  > For now we need to get things straight so we have a starting point for
>  > discussion.
> But what lacks being straightened?

I just checked and the current situation seems to be:

o SourceForge has been reverted and now correctly shows the LGPL again

o The Squeak Map Package Loader still shows an MIT license for Swazoo elements

... so the current lack appears to be in the data available through
the Squeak Map Package Loader which would incorrectly lead people to
think that Swazoo was under MIT.  This needs to say the LGPL instead.

Also, unless I have missed it, Janko has not posted to this list
acknowledging that Swazoo is currently under the LGPL and has been
since project inception.

Without these latter two there would still appear to be a lack of
clarity on the license which applies to Swazoo, but again, my
apologies if I have missed something.

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

Bruce Badger wrote:
> ... so the current lack appears to be in the data available through
> the Squeak Map Package Loader which would incorrectly lead people to
> think that Swazoo was under MIT.  This needs to say the LGPL instead.

I will admit that the situation of Swazoo on SM is *extremely* confusing
at this point. The package named "Swazoo" is being marked as owned by
Janko, does not have a license in the top-level page and lists LGPL for
the individual releases. So far, so good.

However, the packages named "Swazoo-HTTP", "Swazoo-Listener", and
"Swazoo-Server" instead are listed as owned by Avi Bryant, list MIT in
the top-level page, and either "other" or no license in the individual
releases. This seems to be a complete mess.

Unfortunately, requesting that Janko change these packages is beyond his
control. You need to talk to Avi about changing that to LGPL if that's
the appropriate license because he is the only listed maintainer of
these packages.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

On 26/03/2008, Andreas Raab <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Bruce Badger wrote:
>  > ... so the current lack appears to be in the data available through
>  > the Squeak Map Package Loader which would incorrectly lead people to
>  > think that Swazoo was under MIT.  This needs to say the LGPL instead.

>  Unfortunately, requesting that Janko change these packages is beyond his
>  control. You need to talk to Avi about changing that to LGPL if that's
>  the appropriate license because he is the only listed maintainer of
>  these packages.

Will do.  Thanks.

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

On 26/03/2008, Andreas Raab <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  Unfortunately, requesting that Janko change these packages is beyond his
>  control. You need to talk to Avi about changing that to LGPL if that's
>  the appropriate license because he is the only listed maintainer of
>  these packages.

Avi tells me that he has updated the Swazoo Squeak packages to show
that Swazoo is under the LGPL.  I'll check it this evening, but I'm
sure that's fine now.

This only leaves one thing:

Janko, could you please confirm that you now accept that Swazoo is
under the LGPL and has been since the inception of the project?

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

Bruce Badger wrote:
> This only leaves one thing:
>
> Janko, could you please confirm that you now accept that Swazoo is
> under the LGPL and has been since the inception of the project?

Let it go. You got what you wanted (the license changed in all the
places you desired). Let this be enough. There is no need for a public
humiliation here.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:37:24 +0100, Andreas Raab wrote:

> Bruce Badger wrote:
>> This only leaves one thing:

The future? Is the one and only thing left the future? Shall I ask for a  
yes or no response?

>>  Janko, could you please confirm that you now accept that Swazoo is
>> under the LGPL and has been since the inception of the project?
>
> Let it go. You got what you wanted (the license changed in all the  
> places you desired). Let this be enough. There is no need for a public  
> humiliation here.

+ 1 big

/Klaus

> Cheers,
>    - Andreas
>
>

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 1:58 AM, Andreas Raab <[hidden email]> wrote:
Janko said earlier in this thread that those 3 packages are derived
from work that predates Bruce's contributions and are MIT, so it
sounds to me like they're listed correctly.

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 9:18 AM, Bruce Badger <[hidden email]> wrote:
Honestly, this is quite silly.  I hope Swazoo 3.0 closes the door on
this kind of nonsense.

Jason Johnson wrote:

I'd like to kindly ask everyone to refrain from further commenting in
public until some of us original authors and later contributors like
Bruce in private come to agreement. Any public debate in strong tones at
that time wont contribute to successful end of our negotiations. Please
help us that way.

Best regards
Janko



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

+1.
Why initialize deprecated "inquisition software" in an open spirit community? Which reasons or real intentions could possibly motivate that? Why raise the voice to defend an hypotetical claim nobody is making?

Please lets discus things which allow us to have a better future for us and Squeak and let useless objects and messages to go away with the wind (hopefully GC'd).

Give more time to license understanding maintaining a willing of a good end for this so something more mature can emerge in a near future.

        best,

Sebastian

Well said Janko. I'm glad to hear people trying to move forward for the better,

        all the best for the negotiation!

Sebastian Sastre

On 26/03/2008, Klaus D. Witzel <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  > Bruce Badger wrote:
>  >> This only leaves one thing:
>
>  The future? Is the one and only thing left the future? Shall I ask for a
>  yes or no response?

Easy.  Yes :-)

>  >>  Janko, could you please confirm that you now accept that Swazoo is
>  >> under the LGPL and has been since the inception of the project?
>  >
>  > Let it go. You got what you wanted (the license changed in all the
>  > places you desired). Let this be enough. There is no need for a public
>  > humiliation here.
>
>  + 1 big

Indeed.  The thing is, though, that we reached this point in 2006 on
cls.  The error I made then was to not get a clear statement from
Janko.  This has come back to bite us since when challenged I have
insufficient "evidence" to satisfy some on this list.

I merely seek a clear statement of what is inferred.  I do not seek
any apology, even though my last weekend would have been better spent
otherwise.

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

On 26/03/2008, Andreas Raab <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Bruce Badger wrote:
>  > This only leaves one thing:
>  >
>  > Janko, could you please confirm that you now accept that Swazoo is
>  > under the LGPL and has been since the inception of the project?
>
> Let it go. You got what you wanted (the license changed in all the
>  places you desired). Let this be enough. There is no need for a public
>  humiliation here.

What I sought was a correction to what appeared to be an error in the
documentation on Squeak map,  In trying to correct this apparently
simple matter we ended up in a rather long discussion during which
Janko claimed  many things that leave me uncertain about his views
about the Swazoo license and what he may do in the future.

This is because in 2006 we had a similar, though rather shorter,
discussion on exactly this topic on cls during which I thought we had
everything sorted out.  After all, there was a public record of the
thread.

What I just experienced on this list was that, because there was no
clear and explicit acknowledgement of the LGPL license, the situation
was in doubt because of lack of evidence.

I don't want to be in that situation again in another couple of years.

I am not seeking an apology nor do I wish to humiliate anyone.  I
merely ask that Janko confirm that he now accepts that Swazoo is
indeed under the LGPL and has been since the inception of the project.
 If he genuinely now accepts that, why is this so much to ask?

If Janko refuses to make such a public statement I must reluctantly,
given previous experience, assume that Janko has in fact not accepted
that Swazoo is under the LGPL.

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

On 26/03/2008, Jason Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Janko said earlier in this thread that those 3 packages are derived
>  from work that predates Bruce's contributions and are MIT, so it
>  sounds to me like they're listed correctly.

Swazoo was launched as an LGPL project.  See the note that Janko
reposted to this list that was originally posted by Joseph Bakanskas.

Jason, your comments do rather re-enforce the need for Janko to make
his position clear.  Does he really accept that Swazoo is under the
LGPL and has been since the inception of the project, or not?  You
seem to feel not.

Sorry if this appears to be going further that you might wish, but I
really do want to put this topic to bed so we can all move on.

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

On 26/03/2008, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I'd like to kindly ask everyone to refrain from further commenting in
>  public until some of us original authors and later contributors like
>  Bruce in private come to agreement. Any public debate in strong tones at
>  that time wont contribute to successful end of our negotiations. Please
>  help us that way.

Janko, this seems to suggest that you feel that there is some doubt
about the fact that Swazoo is licensed under the LGPL.

Could you please make a clear statement on this?  Do you, or do you
not accept that Swazoo is under the LGPL and has been since the
inception of the project?

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

On 26/03/2008, Sebastian Sastre <[hidden email]> wrote:

>  Why initialize deprecated "inquisition software" in an open spirit community? Which reasons or real intentions could possibly motivate that? Why raise the voice to defend an hypotetical claim nobody is making?

The current issue is one of copyright infringement, not the relative
merit of various licenses.

Once the licensing of Swazoo is normalised, then we can start to have
discussions about any proposed change to the license.

>  Please lets discus things which allow us to have a better future for us and Squeak and let useless objects and messages to go away with the wind (hopefully GC'd).

The key aspect to this thread is: only the copyright holders can say
under what license their works may be copied.  Yet here we have a
situation where it is argued that a new license can be chosen if
enough people think is is a good idea, regardless of what the
copyright holder might think and without even including them in the
discussion.

My wish is to return Swazoo to a stable known state regarding licensing.

Once we are in that state again then we could start to discuss any
proposals to make Swazoo available under a different license.  But
such discussion must start from a know point and involve the copyright
holders.

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