Hi Jecel,
Thanks for the history and all your efforts.
Lou
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 19:56:16 -0300, "Jecel Assumpcao Jr." jecel@merlintec.com wrote:
David T. Lewis wrote on Mon, 22 Sep 2014 20:54:13 -0400
The signed contributor agreement was a part of the process of establishing the current Squeak licensing. I signed one of them myself, as did everyone else who was known to have contributed anything (large or small) to the image up to that point.
Just to add a bit to the history of the licensing issues for those who have joined us more recently:
After being developed as an internal and mostly secret project at Xerox PARC for a decade, the company decided to release Smalltalk to the world in the early 1980s (thanks mostly to the efforts of Adele Goldberg and friends). Xerox got in touch with several other companies and made a deal with Apple, Tektronix, HP and DEC to give them a license to the Smalltalk technology that would allow them to do absolutely anything they wanted with it for free in exchange for them dedicating engineering resources to help with the process of converting a research project into a product.
Later on a fifth license was granted to Berkeley but I don't know if the terms were the same. Tektronix created some "artificial intelligence" workstations around Smalltalk (the 4404 and 4406). They also used Smalltalk in their oscilloscopes, but I am not sure if this also came from Xerox. HP and DEC are now the same company and didn't do anything with it, though later HP had a Distributed Smalltalk project.
Apple did a limited release of Lisa Smalltalk to developers and this later ran on Macintosh machines as well when these got enough memory. It was never available to the general public. When the Squeak project was started in 1996/1997 this code was the starting point and the Xerox license meant that Apple could relicense it under any terms it wanted. Since the Squeak group was moving from Apple to Disney, getting Apple to do its very first Free Software license was key to not having to start from scratch. The new SqueakL (as the license became known) tried to strike a balance between the advantages of the BSD/MIT commercial friendliness (so Disney could build products on top of Squeak and distribute them without giving away the source) and the GPL forced contributions to the common good. Which terms applied depended on whether a method was considered a part of the kernel or if it was an extension, which is a rather subjective thing in a monolithic image.
The following year the term Open Source was invented and defined in a way that the SqueakL didn't quite fit. This caused a lot of anguish and yearly discussions about possible relicensing (always in the Spring, though since it is nearly Spring where I am this thread could be considered timely). Oddly enough the halfway MIT half GPL aspect never bothered anybody. The complaints were about the terms for one of the fonts (which was soon eliminated from the image anyway), about export restrictions (which US laws impose even on licenses that don't mention them) and the promise to help Apple in any lawsuit they got into due to your distributing Squeak.
Things became critical in 2006 when people in the One Laptop Per Child project threatened to reject Squeak due to the license. Alan Kay called Steve Jobs personally and got Apple to re-release Squeak 1.1 under the Apple Community license, as allowed by their Xerox PARC license. The OLPC people were not happy with that, and Alan got Jobs to release Squeak 1.1 a third time under the Apache version 2 license. Then the people at VPRI (Alan's research institute) started the effort to get everybody who had ever added code after Squeak 1.1 to sign an agreement to relicense their part from SqueakL to MIT. The focus was on Etoys, so the Pharo guys extended this effort to the code in their system which wasn't a part of Etoys. After that the Squeak Board started from the Pharo effort and covered the whole Squeak code (my contribution was checking everything that was done in early versions before we had programmer initials).
One additional detail is that when Ian Piumarta ported the Squeak VM to Unix he selected to the GPL for his contributions. Since this is C code and very isolated from the rest of the system nobody has ever had a problem with that. But it does mean that the whole Squeak system is available in 3 different licenses: parts under the GPL, parts under Apache version 2 and everything else under MIT. Our policy is that all future contributions have to be MIT, so the tiny parts under the two other licenses will never grow. The simplification that "Squeak is available under the MIT license" is good enough for nearly all purposes, but some people are picky so I thought it would be a good idea to bore you all with these details.
-- Jecel
----------------------------------------------------------- Louis LaBrunda Keystone Software Corp. SkypeMe callto://PhotonDemon mailto:Lou@Keystone-Software.com http://www.Keystone-Software.com
I've googled "MIT Licence". There appears to be several and the most important one should probably be called something else? So what, precisely, is "the MIT licence" that I am bound by when I make a Squeak contribution?
On 24.09.2014 15:01, Louis LaBrunda wrote:
Hi Jecel,
Thanks for the history and all your efforts.
Lou
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 19:56:16 -0300, "Jecel Assumpcao Jr." jecel@merlintec.com wrote:
David T. Lewis wrote on Mon, 22 Sep 2014 20:54:13 -0400
The signed contributor agreement was a part of the process of establishing the current Squeak licensing. I signed one of them myself, as did everyone else who was known to have contributed anything (large or small) to the image up to that point.
Just to add a bit to the history of the licensing issues for those who have joined us more recently:
After being developed as an internal and mostly secret project at Xerox PARC for a decade, the company decided to release Smalltalk to the world in the early 1980s (thanks mostly to the efforts of Adele Goldberg and friends). Xerox got in touch with several other companies and made a deal with Apple, Tektronix, HP and DEC to give them a license to the Smalltalk technology that would allow them to do absolutely anything they wanted with it for free in exchange for them dedicating engineering resources to help with the process of converting a research project into a product.
Later on a fifth license was granted to Berkeley but I don't know if the terms were the same. Tektronix created some "artificial intelligence" workstations around Smalltalk (the 4404 and 4406). They also used Smalltalk in their oscilloscopes, but I am not sure if this also came from Xerox. HP and DEC are now the same company and didn't do anything with it, though later HP had a Distributed Smalltalk project.
Apple did a limited release of Lisa Smalltalk to developers and this later ran on Macintosh machines as well when these got enough memory. It was never available to the general public. When the Squeak project was started in 1996/1997 this code was the starting point and the Xerox license meant that Apple could relicense it under any terms it wanted. Since the Squeak group was moving from Apple to Disney, getting Apple to do its very first Free Software license was key to not having to start from scratch. The new SqueakL (as the license became known) tried to strike a balance between the advantages of the BSD/MIT commercial friendliness (so Disney could build products on top of Squeak and distribute them without giving away the source) and the GPL forced contributions to the common good. Which terms applied depended on whether a method was considered a part of the kernel or if it was an extension, which is a rather subjective thing in a monolithic image.
The following year the term Open Source was invented and defined in a way that the SqueakL didn't quite fit. This caused a lot of anguish and yearly discussions about possible relicensing (always in the Spring, though since it is nearly Spring where I am this thread could be considered timely). Oddly enough the halfway MIT half GPL aspect never bothered anybody. The complaints were about the terms for one of the fonts (which was soon eliminated from the image anyway), about export restrictions (which US laws impose even on licenses that don't mention them) and the promise to help Apple in any lawsuit they got into due to your distributing Squeak.
Things became critical in 2006 when people in the One Laptop Per Child project threatened to reject Squeak due to the license. Alan Kay called Steve Jobs personally and got Apple to re-release Squeak 1.1 under the Apple Community license, as allowed by their Xerox PARC license. The OLPC people were not happy with that, and Alan got Jobs to release Squeak 1.1 a third time under the Apache version 2 license. Then the people at VPRI (Alan's research institute) started the effort to get everybody who had ever added code after Squeak 1.1 to sign an agreement to relicense their part from SqueakL to MIT. The focus was on Etoys, so the Pharo guys extended this effort to the code in their system which wasn't a part of Etoys. After that the Squeak Board started from the Pharo effort and covered the whole Squeak code (my contribution was checking everything that was done in early versions before we had programmer initials).
One additional detail is that when Ian Piumarta ported the Squeak VM to Unix he selected to the GPL for his contributions. Since this is C code and very isolated from the rest of the system nobody has ever had a problem with that. But it does mean that the whole Squeak system is available in 3 different licenses: parts under the GPL, parts under Apache version 2 and everything else under MIT. Our policy is that all future contributions have to be MIT, so the tiny parts under the two other licenses will never grow. The simplification that "Squeak is available under the MIT license" is good enough for nearly all purposes, but some people are picky so I thought it would be a good idea to bore you all with these details.
-- Jecel
Louis LaBrunda Keystone Software Corp. SkypeMe callto://PhotonDemon mailto:Lou@Keystone-Software.com http://www.Keystone-Software.com
Hi Trygve,
The MIT license is here:
http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
I believe that you'll find it more optimal than the BSD license by a small number of bytes.
Cheers,
Casey
On Sep 24, 2014, at 6:50 AM, Trygve Reenskaug trygver@ifi.uio.no wrote:
I've googled "MIT Licence". There appears to be several and the most important one should probably be called something else? So what, precisely, is "the MIT licence" that I am bound by when I make a Squeak contribution?
On 24.09.2014 15:01, Louis LaBrunda wrote: Hi Jecel,
Thanks for the history and all your efforts.
Lou
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 19:56:16 -0300, "Jecel Assumpcao Jr." jecel@merlintec.com wrote:
David T. Lewis wrote on Mon, 22 Sep 2014 20:54:13 -0400
The signed contributor agreement was a part of the process of establishing the current Squeak licensing. I signed one of them myself, as did everyone else who was known to have contributed anything (large or small) to the image up to that point.
Just to add a bit to the history of the licensing issues for those who have joined us more recently:
After being developed as an internal and mostly secret project at Xerox PARC for a decade, the company decided to release Smalltalk to the world in the early 1980s (thanks mostly to the efforts of Adele Goldberg and friends). Xerox got in touch with several other companies and made a deal with Apple, Tektronix, HP and DEC to give them a license to the Smalltalk technology that would allow them to do absolutely anything they wanted with it for free in exchange for them dedicating engineering resources to help with the process of converting a research project into a product.
Later on a fifth license was granted to Berkeley but I don't know if the terms were the same. Tektronix created some "artificial intelligence" workstations around Smalltalk (the 4404 and 4406). They also used Smalltalk in their oscilloscopes, but I am not sure if this also came from Xerox. HP and DEC are now the same company and didn't do anything with it, though later HP had a Distributed Smalltalk project.
Apple did a limited release of Lisa Smalltalk to developers and this later ran on Macintosh machines as well when these got enough memory. It was never available to the general public. When the Squeak project was started in 1996/1997 this code was the starting point and the Xerox license meant that Apple could relicense it under any terms it wanted. Since the Squeak group was moving from Apple to Disney, getting Apple to do its very first Free Software license was key to not having to start from scratch. The new SqueakL (as the license became known) tried to strike a balance between the advantages of the BSD/MIT commercial friendliness (so Disney could build products on top of Squeak and distribute them without giving away the source) and the GPL forced contributions to the common good. Which terms applied depended on whether a method was considered a part of the kernel or if it was an extension, which is a rather subjective thing in a monolithic image.
The following year the term Open Source was invented and defined in a way that the SqueakL didn't quite fit. This caused a lot of anguish and yearly discussions about possible relicensing (always in the Spring, though since it is nearly Spring where I am this thread could be considered timely). Oddly enough the halfway MIT half GPL aspect never bothered anybody. The complaints were about the terms for one of the fonts (which was soon eliminated from the image anyway), about export restrictions (which US laws impose even on licenses that don't mention them) and the promise to help Apple in any lawsuit they got into due to your distributing Squeak.
Things became critical in 2006 when people in the One Laptop Per Child project threatened to reject Squeak due to the license. Alan Kay called Steve Jobs personally and got Apple to re-release Squeak 1.1 under the Apple Community license, as allowed by their Xerox PARC license. The OLPC people were not happy with that, and Alan got Jobs to release Squeak 1.1 a third time under the Apache version 2 license. Then the people at VPRI (Alan's research institute) started the effort to get everybody who had ever added code after Squeak 1.1 to sign an agreement to relicense their part from SqueakL to MIT. The focus was on Etoys, so the Pharo guys extended this effort to the code in their system which wasn't a part of Etoys. After that the Squeak Board started from the Pharo effort and covered the whole Squeak code (my contribution was checking everything that was done in early versions before we had programmer initials).
One additional detail is that when Ian Piumarta ported the Squeak VM to Unix he selected to the GPL for his contributions. Since this is C code and very isolated from the rest of the system nobody has ever had a problem with that. But it does mean that the whole Squeak system is available in 3 different licenses: parts under the GPL, parts under Apache version 2 and everything else under MIT. Our policy is that all future contributions have to be MIT, so the tiny parts under the two other licenses will never grow. The simplification that "Squeak is available under the MIT license" is good enough for nearly all purposes, but some people are picky so I thought it would be a good idea to bore you all with these details.
-- Jecel
Louis LaBrunda Keystone Software Corp. SkypeMe callto://PhotonDemon mailto:Lou@Keystone-Software.com http://www.Keystone-Software.com
--
Trygve Reenskaug mailto: trygver@ifi.uio.no Morgedalsvn. 5A http://folk.uio.no/trygver/ N-0378 Oslo http://fullOO.info Norway Tel: (+47) 22 49 57 27
I think this is the canonical one:
http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
Trygve Reenskaug wrote
I've googled "MIT Licence". There appears to be several and the most important one should probably be called something else? So what, precisely, is "the MIT licence" that I am bound by when I make a Squeak contribution?
On 24.09.2014 15:01, Louis LaBrunda wrote:
Hi Jecel,
Thanks for the history and all your efforts.
Lou
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 19:56:16 -0300, "Jecel Assumpcao Jr." <
jecel@
> wrote:
David T. Lewis wrote on Mon, 22 Sep 2014 20:54:13 -0400
The signed contributor agreement was a part of the process of establishing the current Squeak licensing. I signed one of them myself, as did everyone else who was known to have contributed anything (large or small) to the image up to that point.
Just to add a bit to the history of the licensing issues for those who have joined us more recently:
After being developed as an internal and mostly secret project at Xerox PARC for a decade, the company decided to release Smalltalk to the world in the early 1980s (thanks mostly to the efforts of Adele Goldberg and friends). Xerox got in touch with several other companies and made a deal with Apple, Tektronix, HP and DEC to give them a license to the Smalltalk technology that would allow them to do absolutely anything they wanted with it for free in exchange for them dedicating engineering resources to help with the process of converting a research project into a product.
Later on a fifth license was granted to Berkeley but I don't know if the terms were the same. Tektronix created some "artificial intelligence" workstations around Smalltalk (the 4404 and 4406). They also used Smalltalk in their oscilloscopes, but I am not sure if this also came from Xerox. HP and DEC are now the same company and didn't do anything with it, though later HP had a Distributed Smalltalk project.
Apple did a limited release of Lisa Smalltalk to developers and this later ran on Macintosh machines as well when these got enough memory. It was never available to the general public. When the Squeak project was started in 1996/1997 this code was the starting point and the Xerox license meant that Apple could relicense it under any terms it wanted. Since the Squeak group was moving from Apple to Disney, getting Apple to do its very first Free Software license was key to not having to start from scratch. The new SqueakL (as the license became known) tried to strike a balance between the advantages of the BSD/MIT commercial friendliness (so Disney could build products on top of Squeak and distribute them without giving away the source) and the GPL forced contributions to the common good. Which terms applied depended on whether a method was considered a part of the kernel or if it was an extension, which is a rather subjective thing in a monolithic image.
The following year the term Open Source was invented and defined in a way that the SqueakL didn't quite fit. This caused a lot of anguish and yearly discussions about possible relicensing (always in the Spring, though since it is nearly Spring where I am this thread could be considered timely). Oddly enough the halfway MIT half GPL aspect never bothered anybody. The complaints were about the terms for one of the fonts (which was soon eliminated from the image anyway), about export restrictions (which US laws impose even on licenses that don't mention them) and the promise to help Apple in any lawsuit they got into due to your distributing Squeak.
Things became critical in 2006 when people in the One Laptop Per Child project threatened to reject Squeak due to the license. Alan Kay called Steve Jobs personally and got Apple to re-release Squeak 1.1 under the Apple Community license, as allowed by their Xerox PARC license. The OLPC people were not happy with that, and Alan got Jobs to release Squeak 1.1 a third time under the Apache version 2 license. Then the people at VPRI (Alan's research institute) started the effort to get everybody who had ever added code after Squeak 1.1 to sign an agreement to relicense their part from SqueakL to MIT. The focus was on Etoys, so the Pharo guys extended this effort to the code in their system which wasn't a part of Etoys. After that the Squeak Board started from the Pharo effort and covered the whole Squeak code (my contribution was checking everything that was done in early versions before we had programmer initials).
One additional detail is that when Ian Piumarta ported the Squeak VM to Unix he selected to the GPL for his contributions. Since this is C code and very isolated from the rest of the system nobody has ever had a problem with that. But it does mean that the whole Squeak system is available in 3 different licenses: parts under the GPL, parts under Apache version 2 and everything else under MIT. Our policy is that all future contributions have to be MIT, so the tiny parts under the two other licenses will never grow. The simplification that "Squeak is available under the MIT license" is good enough for nearly all purposes, but some people are picky so I thought it would be a good idea to bore you all with these details.
-- Jecel
Louis LaBrunda Keystone Software Corp. SkypeMe callto://PhotonDemon mailto:
Lou@
http://www.Keystone-Software.com
--
Trygve Reenskaug mailto:
trygver@.uio
Morgedalsvn. 5A http://folk.uio.no/trygver/ N-0378 Oslo http://fullOO.info Norway Tel: (+47) 22 49 57 27
-- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Contributor-agreement-tp4779542p4779997.html Sent from the Squeak - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 24.09.2014, at 15:50, Trygve Reenskaug trygver@ifi.uio.no wrote:
I've googled "MIT Licence". There appears to be several and the most important one should probably be called something else? So what, precisely, is "the MIT licence" that I am bound by when I make a Squeak contribution?
Smalltalk license
- Bert -
On 26 September 2014 14:15, Bert Freudenberg bert@freudenbergs.de wrote:
On 24.09.2014, at 15:50, Trygve Reenskaug trygver@ifi.uio.no wrote:
I've googled "MIT Licence". There appears to be several and the most important one should probably be called something else? So what, precisely, is "the MIT licence" that I am bound by when I make a Squeak contribution?
Smalltalk license
Specifically, this (from http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php):
The MIT License (MIT)
Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
frank
- Bert -
On 26.09.2014, at 16:05, Frank Shearar frank.shearar@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 September 2014 14:15, Bert Freudenberg bert@freudenbergs.de wrote:
On 24.09.2014, at 15:50, Trygve Reenskaug trygver@ifi.uio.no wrote:
I've googled "MIT Licence". There appears to be several and the most important one should probably be called something else? So what, precisely, is "the MIT licence" that I am bound by when I make a Squeak contribution?
Smalltalk license
Specifically, ...
I specifically meant you should print "Smalltalk licence".
- Bert -
On 26.09.2014 16:08, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
On 26.09.2014, at 16:05, Frank Shearar frank.shearar@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 September 2014 14:15, Bert Freudenberg bert@freudenbergs.de wrote:
On 24.09.2014, at 15:50, Trygve Reenskaug trygver@ifi.uio.no wrote:
I've googled "MIT Licence". There appears to be several and the most important one should probably be called something else? So what, precisely, is "the MIT licence" that I am bound by when I make a Squeak contribution?
Smalltalk license
Specifically, ...
I specifically meant you should print "Smalltalk licence".
- Bert -
My original concern was caused by a problem with the current Pharo license. The problem is now fixed. It's not clear to me how this discussion drifted onto the Squeak list, it was probably my fault. I apologize for the confusion. --Trygve
On 26 September 2014 15:08, Bert Freudenberg bert@freudenbergs.de wrote:
On 26.09.2014, at 16:05, Frank Shearar frank.shearar@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 September 2014 14:15, Bert Freudenberg bert@freudenbergs.de wrote:
On 24.09.2014, at 15:50, Trygve Reenskaug trygver@ifi.uio.no wrote:
I've googled "MIT Licence". There appears to be several and the most important one should probably be called something else? So what, precisely, is "the MIT licence" that I am bound by when I make a Squeak contribution?
Smalltalk license
Specifically, ...
I specifically meant you should print "Smalltalk licence".
Then we really ought to change source.squeak.org/trunk which specifically says "MIT", and the licence I pasted.
frank
- Bert -
Frank: no, I think what Bert is saying is if you send #license to Smalltalk, you get the MIT license back as a byte string. We talked about this during the 4.0 effort. I also put it at the top of the .sources file as a sort of comment in the chunk format, which should be visible in at least that particular artifact (we did this because it was what made the SFC folks happy about taking us on at the time. By "we" I mean I did it, at the board's behest.)
Anyway, Chris M: I appreciate your point of view. Given that a mistake about something like this could prove (at best) a lot of work for someone to have to rip out some code (which may have grown dependencies) and (at worst) potential "Imperial entanglements," I hope folks don't mind too much my somewhat nannying position on the matter, or that I spoke up about it.
Let's just be *very* careful. If I had my druthers, (I'd know what druthers were, what the hell are druthers again?) I'd move the #license selector and associated method to Object. I'd like to use this system in a business someday, and if we screw the licensing up, *I'm* going to inevitably have to fix it myself. So I'll retract my 'Period,' but cautiously. Craig's right, I'm not a judge.
The good news is, everyone we have with a commit bit has the best intentions, and Monticello gives us a paper trail about who submitted what changes and thus a line of inquiry if there are ever questions about the provenance of a piece of code. I hope?
I'm certainly not here to spread fear, uncertainty, or doubt. Just to advise caution with the best of intentions.
Cheers,
Casey
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Frank Shearar frank.shearar@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 September 2014 15:08, Bert Freudenberg bert@freudenbergs.de wrote:
On 26.09.2014, at 16:05, Frank Shearar frank.shearar@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 September 2014 14:15, Bert Freudenberg bert@freudenbergs.de
wrote:
On 24.09.2014, at 15:50, Trygve Reenskaug trygver@ifi.uio.no wrote:
I've googled "MIT Licence". There appears to be several and the most
important one should probably be called something else?
So what, precisely, is "the MIT licence" that I am bound by when I
make a Squeak contribution?
Smalltalk license
Specifically, ...
I specifically meant you should print "Smalltalk licence".
Then we really ought to change source.squeak.org/trunk which specifically says "MIT", and the licence I pasted.
frank
- Bert -
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 4:20 AM, Casey Ransberger casey.obrien.r@gmail.com wrote:
Frank: no, I think what Bert is saying is if you send #license to Smalltalk, you get the MIT license back as a byte string. We talked about this during the 4.0 effort. I also put it at the top of the .sources file as a sort of comment in the chunk format, which should be visible in at least that particular artifact (we did this because it was what made the SFC folks happy about taking us on at the time. By "we" I mean I did it, at the board's behest.)
I don't want to spark a debate but would it perhaps be good for Smalltalk licence to begin with "The MIT License (MIT)"? Otherwise it is implicit.
Anyway, Chris M: I appreciate your point of view. Given that a mistake about something like this could prove (at best) a lot of work for someone to have to rip out some code (which may have grown dependencies) and (at worst) potential "Imperial entanglements," I hope folks don't mind too much my somewhat nannying position on the matter, or that I spoke up about it.
Let's just be *very* careful. If I had my druthers, (I'd know what druthers were, what the hell are druthers again?) I'd move the #license selector and associated method to Object. I'd like to use this system in a business someday, and if we screw the licensing up, *I'm* going to inevitably have to fix it myself. So I'll retract my 'Period,' but cautiously. Craig's right, I'm not a judge.
The good news is, everyone we have with a commit bit has the best intentions, and Monticello gives us a paper trail about who submitted what changes and thus a line of inquiry if there are ever questions about the provenance of a piece of code. I hope?
I'm certainly not here to spread fear, uncertainty, or doubt. Just to advise caution with the best of intentions.
Cheers,
Casey
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Frank Shearar frank.shearar@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 September 2014 15:08, Bert Freudenberg bert@freudenbergs.de wrote:
On 26.09.2014, at 16:05, Frank Shearar frank.shearar@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 September 2014 14:15, Bert Freudenberg bert@freudenbergs.de
wrote:
On 24.09.2014, at 15:50, Trygve Reenskaug trygver@ifi.uio.no wrote:
I've googled "MIT Licence". There appears to be several and the most
important one should probably be called something else?
So what, precisely, is "the MIT licence" that I am bound by when I
make a Squeak contribution?
Smalltalk license
Specifically, ...
I specifically meant you should print "Smalltalk licence".
Then we really ought to change source.squeak.org/trunk which specifically says "MIT", and the licence I pasted.
frank
- Bert -
On 27.09.2014, at 21:04, Eliot Miranda eliot.miranda@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 4:20 AM, Casey Ransberger casey.obrien.r@gmail.com wrote: Frank: no, I think what Bert is saying is if you send #license to Smalltalk, you get the MIT license back as a byte string. We talked about this during the 4.0 effort. I also put it at the top of the .sources file as a sort of comment in the chunk format, which should be visible in at least that particular artifact (we did this because it was what made the SFC folks happy about taking us on at the time. By "we" I mean I did it, at the board's behest.)
I don't want to spark a debate but would it perhaps be good for Smalltalk licence to begin with "The MIT License (MIT)"? Otherwise it is implicit.
Of course it's implicit, "MIT" is just a shorthand for the actual license, which does not mention MIT. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License
- Bert -
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Bert Freudenberg -
Casey Ransberger -
Eliot Miranda -
Frank Shearar -
Louis LaBrunda -
Paul DeBruicker -
Trygve Reenskaug