Smalltalk › Squeak › Squeak - Dev

[squeak-dev] Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

105 messages Options

1234 ... 6

Bruce Badger

[squeak-dev] Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?

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.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/swazoo/

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?

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

Janko Mivšek

Re: [squeak-dev] Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?

Bruce Badger wrote:

> 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.
>
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/swazoo/
>
> 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?

Just changed to MIT on squeakforge, to please all license
fundamentalists out there :)

Janko
Maintainer of Swazoo

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

Randal L. Schwartz

Re: [squeak-dev] Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?

>>>>> "Janko" == Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> writes:

Janko> Just changed to MIT on squeakforge, to please all license fundamentalists out
Janko> there :)

I'm not sure whether to say "thank you" or just blush. :)

--
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!

Bruce Badger

Re: [squeak-dev] Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?

In reply to this post by Janko Mivšek

On 18/03/2008, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Bruce Badger wrote:
> > 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.

> Just changed to MIT on squeakforge, to please all license
> fundamentalists out there :)

Swazoo is licensed under the LGPL, just saying it ain't changes
nothing. Reporting the license incorrectly just ends up misleading
people. *Knowingly* misrepresenting the licence is a very Bad Thing
Indeed.

This error needs to be corrected PDQ.

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

Paolo Bonzini-2

[squeak-dev] Re: Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?

Bruce Badger wrote:

> On 18/03/2008, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Bruce Badger wrote:
>> > 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.
>
>> Just changed to MIT on squeakforge, to please all license
>> fundamentalists out there :)
>
> Swazoo is licensed under the LGPL, just saying it ain't changes
> nothing. Reporting the license incorrectly just ends up misleading
> people. *Knowingly* misrepresenting the licence is a very Bad Thing
> Indeed.

I suppose Janko collected agreement to change the license from the major
contributors to Swazoo.

Paolo

Janko Mivšek

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?

Paolo Bonzini wrote:

> Bruce Badger wrote:
>> On 18/03/2008, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Bruce Badger wrote:
>>> > 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.
>>
>>> Just changed to MIT on squeakforge, to please all license
>>> fundamentalists out there :)
>>
>> Swazoo is licensed under the LGPL, just saying it ain't changes
>> nothing. Reporting the license incorrectly just ends up misleading
>> people. *Knowingly* misrepresenting the licence is a very Bad Thing
>> Indeed.
>
> I suppose Janko collected agreement to change the license from the major
> contributors to Swazoo.
>
> Paolo

No I didn't, but I also don't remember that we seriously set up a
license for Swazoo. Those chooses were more chooses by license
popularity than anything else. As it was (and still mostly is) in
Smalltalk world.

Best regards
Janko

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

Philippe Marschall

Re: [squeak-dev] Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?

In reply to this post by Bruce Badger

2008/3/19, Bruce Badger <[hidden email]>:

> On 18/03/2008, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Bruce Badger wrote:
> > > 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.
>
>
> > Just changed to MIT on squeakforge, to please all license
> > fundamentalists out there :)
>
>
> Swazoo is licensed under the LGPL, just saying it ain't changes
> nothing. Reporting the license incorrectly just ends up misleading
> people. *Knowingly* misrepresenting the licence is a very Bad Thing
> Indeed.
>
> This error needs to be corrected PDQ.

Do I interpret the LGPL correctly that the Seaside Swazoo adapter
(subclass of a a Swazoo class) would need to be LGPL as well?

Cheers
Philippe

Paolo Bonzini-2

[squeak-dev] Re: Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?

> Do I interpret the LGPL correctly that the Seaside Swazoo adapter
> (subclass of a a Swazoo class) would need to be LGPL as well?

No, Site is pretty much the interface that Swazoo exposes to its users;
you cannot *use* Swazoo without subclassing Site. Subclassing
HeaderField would be another story.

Paolo

Janko Mivšek

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?

Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Do I interpret the LGPL correctly that the Seaside Swazoo adapter
>> (subclass of a a Swazoo class) would need to be LGPL as well?
>
> No, Site is pretty much the interface that Swazoo exposes to its users;
> you cannot *use* Swazoo without subclassing Site. Subclassing
> HeaderField would be another story.

We had just recently a semi-official and a bit broader (and very simple
actually) interpretation. Using it on Swazoo: LGPL is covered if you
extend Swazoo by some other package as is in your case, Philippe. Reason
IMHO is simple: borders between Swazoo and code it uses it is preserved
and clear.

Janko

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

Bruce Badger

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?

In reply to this post by Janko Mivšek

On 19/03/2008, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > I suppose Janko collected agreement to change the license from the major
> > contributors to Swazoo.

> No I didn't, but I also don't remember that we seriously set up a
> license for Swazoo. Those chooses were more chooses by license
> popularity than anything else. As it was (and still mostly is) in
> Smalltalk world.

As Paolo suggests, licensing isn't something can be changed without
the OK from all contributors. All the discussions on cls are clear
that Swazoo is under the LGPL. Have a look for yourself. Use Google
to search for "Swazoo license" in the comp.lang.smalltalk group. I
recall the issue ever coming up on the Swazoo mailing list.

We just need to change the entries that appear in the Squeak
repositories so that the actual license is clear to any potential
users of Swazoo.

I guess apologies may be due to people who have adopted Swazoo under
the mistaken impression that it is licensed under MIT :-/

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

Philippe Marschall

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?

In reply to this post by Janko Mivšek

2008/3/19, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]>:

> Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> Do I interpret the LGPL correctly that the Seaside Swazoo adapter
> >> (subclass of a a Swazoo class) would need to be LGPL as well?
> >
> > No, Site is pretty much the interface that Swazoo exposes to its users;
> > you cannot *use* Swazoo without subclassing Site. Subclassing
> > HeaderField would be another story.
>
>
> We had just recently a semi-official and a bit broader (and very simple
> actually) interpretation. Using it on Swazoo: LGPL is covered if you
> extend Swazoo by some other package as is in your case, Philippe. Reason
> IMHO is simple: borders between Swazoo and code it uses it is preserved
> and clear.

Sorry I have some problems parsing this. I need a clear and official
response whether the Swazoo Seaside Adapter needs to be under LGPL. If
not what changes we are allowed to make without it having to move to
LGPL.

Cheers
Philippe

Philippe Marschall

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?

2008/3/19, Philippe Marschall <[hidden email]>:

> 2008/3/19, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > >> Do I interpret the LGPL correctly that the Seaside Swazoo adapter
> > >> (subclass of a a Swazoo class) would need to be LGPL as well?
> > >
> > > No, Site is pretty much the interface that Swazoo exposes to its users;
> > > you cannot *use* Swazoo without subclassing Site. Subclassing
> > > HeaderField would be another story.
> >
> >
> > We had just recently a semi-official and a bit broader (and very simple
> > actually) interpretation. Using it on Swazoo: LGPL is covered if you
> > extend Swazoo by some other package as is in your case, Philippe. Reason
> > IMHO is simple: borders between Swazoo and code it uses it is preserved
> > and clear.
>
>
> Sorry I have some problems parsing this. I need a clear and official
> response whether the Swazoo Seaside Adapter needs to be under LGPL. If
> not what changes we are allowed to make without it having to move to
> LGPL.

*bump*
I need a clear, official and legal waterproof answer on this.

Cheers
Philippe

Jason Johnson-5

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?

I don't think you're going to get that answer here.

How much work would it be to recode the parts of Swazoo that are under
LGPL so that they can be MIT?

On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Philippe Marschall
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2008/3/19, Philippe Marschall <[hidden email]>:
>
>
> > 2008/3/19, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > >> Do I interpret the LGPL correctly that the Seaside Swazoo adapter
> > > >> (subclass of a a Swazoo class) would need to be LGPL as well?
> > > >
> > > > No, Site is pretty much the interface that Swazoo exposes to its users;
> > > > you cannot *use* Swazoo without subclassing Site. Subclassing
> > > > HeaderField would be another story.
> > >
> > >
> > > We had just recently a semi-official and a bit broader (and very simple
> > > actually) interpretation. Using it on Swazoo: LGPL is covered if you
> > > extend Swazoo by some other package as is in your case, Philippe. Reason
> > > IMHO is simple: borders between Swazoo and code it uses it is preserved
> > > and clear.
> >
> >
> > Sorry I have some problems parsing this. I need a clear and official
> > response whether the Swazoo Seaside Adapter needs to be under LGPL. If
> > not what changes we are allowed to make without it having to move to
> > LGPL.
>
> *bump*
> I need a clear, official and legal waterproof answer on this.
>
> Cheers
> Philippe
>
>
>
>

Philippe Marschall

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?

2008/3/21, Jason Johnson <[hidden email]>:
> I don't think you're going to get that answer here.

Then I'll have to assume LGPL.

Janko Mivšek

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?

In reply to this post by Bruce Badger

Bruce Badger wrote:

>> No I didn't, but I also don't remember that we seriously set up a
>> license for Swazoo. Those chooses were more chooses by license
>> popularity than anything else. As it was (and still mostly is) in
>> Smalltalk world.
>
> As Paolo suggests, licensing isn't something can be changed without
> the OK from all contributors. All the discussions on cls are clear
> that Swazoo is under the LGPL. Have a look for yourself. Use Google
> to search for "Swazoo license" in the comp.lang.smalltalk group. I
> recall the issue ever coming up on the Swazoo mailing list.
>
> We just need to change the entries that appear in the Squeak
> repositories so that the actual license is clear to any potential
> users of Swazoo.
>
> I guess apologies may be due to people who have adopted Swazoo under
> the mistaken impression that it is licensed under MIT :-/

Well, Swazoo license is still not seriously defined IMO and it it a time
to do that. So, because of lack of "Smalltalk" license and from recent
relicensing efforts, we have obviously two choices: MIT and LGPL. Now,
if I understand correctly the current view on licenses in Smalltalk
community (very simplified):

MIT code can be used in (L)GPL code
LGPL code cannot be used in MIT code

From above equations it is obvious that MIT code is a way to go. And as
far as I know it is just you Bruce, who explicitly contribute a LGPL
code. For good of all Smalltalk community I would therefore kindly ask
you if you consider changing license for it to MIT.

Best regards
JAnko

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

Bruce Badger

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?

On 21/03/2008, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Well, Swazoo license is still not seriously defined IMO

Huh? The issue has come up a number of times on cls (first in 2000)
and the conclusion that Swazoo is under the LGPL was questioned but
never challenged. The SourceForge project makes it clear that Swazoo
is under the LGPL.

This is the first time I have heard anyone explicitly claim otherwise.
On previous ocations, Janko, you have said effectively "Oh, is it? I
didn't know". This is the first time I have seen you or anyone
seriously assert that Swazoo is not 100% LGPL.

You can't change the license by just announcing that you have.

If you manage to persuade the people who contributed to Swazoo to
switch the license, then fair enough. Until then, Swazoo is 100%
under the LGPL, no ifs no buts no doubt.

For now the pertinent question is: Who will fix the erroneous listing
that shows Swazoo is under MIT in Squeak? People would be quite
rightly upset if they have picked up something on the basis it is
available under one licence when it fact it is under another.

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

Paolo Bonzini-2

[squeak-dev] Re: Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?

In reply to this post by Philippe Marschall

> I need a clear, official and legal waterproof answer on this.

I gave you that answer, here is it a clearer one. I don't know if you
will consider it legally waterproof -- and you cannot consider it
official of course.

If your changes are subclasses of something is clearly part of the
interface (you cannot use Swazoo without providing those subclasses, and
those subclasses are not important to other users of Swazoo), adding
your subclasses is not going to LGPL.

If you modify existing methods it's going to be LGPL. But in general if
your changes affect something is clearly part of the internal working of
Swazoo, e.g. you fixed a bug or added a new feature that other users of
the interface could use, it's going to LGPL.

Paolo

Bruce Badger

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?

In reply to this post by Janko Mivšek

On 21/03/2008, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote:
> And as
> far as I know it is just you Bruce, who explicitly contribute a LGPL
> code. For good of all Smalltalk community I would therefore kindly ask
> you if you consider changing license for it to MIT.

There is no "right" answer wrt licensing and everyone needs to form
their own view.

I chose to use the HTTP server in Swazoo in 2001 *because* it was
licensed under the LGPL. All of the work that I contributed to the
HTTP server was contributed under the LGPL, and Hyper (which is the
current embodiment of that work) is under the LGPL. I have no plans
to change any of that.

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

Andreas.Raab

[squeak-dev] Re: Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?

In reply to this post by Paolo Bonzini-2

Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> If your changes are subclasses of something is clearly part of the
> interface (you cannot use Swazoo without providing those subclasses, and
> those subclasses are not important to other users of Swazoo), adding
> your subclasses is not going to LGPL.

I have always been wondering about this. Where exactly in the LGPL does
it say that? I have always considered sect. 2 to be the killer because
subclassing interface classes (like you suggest) seem to be exactly the
kind of modification that section 2 refers to and the only applicable
choice for those is, according to section 2 of the license either LGPL
or GPL.

IANAL, but I'm curious where in the LGPL you see your interpretation.

Cheers,
- Andreas

>
> If you modify existing methods it's going to be LGPL. But in general if
> your changes affect something is clearly part of the internal working of
> Swazoo, e.g. you fixed a bug or added a new feature that other users of
> the interface could use, it's going to LGPL.
>
> Paolo
>
>

Janko Mivšek

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?

In reply to this post by Bruce Badger

Bruce Badger wrote:
> On 21/03/2008, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Well, Swazoo license is still not seriously defined IMO
>
> Huh? The issue has come up a number of times on cls (first in 2000)
> and the conclusion that Swazoo is under the LGPL was questioned but
> never challenged. The SourceForge project makes it clear that Swazoo
> is under the LGPL.

Well from that thread in 2006 it was obviously not very strongly defined:

"Bruce, as far as I know there is no explicit license for Swazoo but it
has the same as other Camp Smalltalk projects like SUnit. Therefore it
is definitively not GPL. On the other side I don't know if we ever
define a "Camp Smalltalk" license... "

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.smalltalk/browse_thread/thread/665597fea7a67332/c769fb53823e1e94?lnk=st&q=#c769fb53823e1e94

> This is the first time I have heard anyone explicitly claim otherwise.

See c.l.s thread above.

> On previous ocations, Janko, you have said effectively "Oh, is it? I
> didn't know". This is the first time I have seen you or anyone
> seriously assert that Swazoo is not 100% LGPL.
>
> You can't change the license by just announcing that you have.
>
> If you manage to persuade the people who contributed to Swazoo to
> switch the license, then fair enough. Until then, Swazoo is 100%
> under the LGPL, no ifs no buts no doubt.
>
> For now the pertinent question is: Who will fix the erroneous listing
> that shows Swazoo is under MIT in Squeak? People would be quite
> rightly upset if they have picked up something on the basis it is
> available under one licence when it fact it is under another.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

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

1234 ... 6