Kats is an in-memory transaction service for Smalltalk (Squeak specifically). You'll find the downloads and information at: http://spair.swiki.net/kats
It's a 0.1 alpha release with very little documentation. Briefly, a few of the features:
- multi-level transactions - two-phase commit protocol - compiler modifications to allow transparent support for transactions - object locking (for pessimistic concurrency...read, write, and exclusive locks) - customizable conflict detection algorithm (default just detects any concurrent mutations (on any inst var) of the same objects) - a transaction explorer (and modified process browser to show the transaction associated with a process) - a transactional inspector for viewing the state of objects in a given "state context" (transaction) - a transactional workspace to evaluate expressions in the context of a given transaction - an optional "execution context" model for transactions (built mainly to highlight differences in this system with traditional TP monitors) - a transaction aspect installer (for adding/removing transaction capabilities to existing classes) - a TxObject class, which can be subclassed for automatic transaction support - a couple of special transactional classes to illustrate specializing the conflict detection algorithm (TxCounter and TxBag)
I wanted to release this under a license compatible with the Squeak license and basically require that derivative works be required be released under the same open source license as the original while allowing both commercial and non-commercial use of the transaction system. I started modifying the Squeak license, but didn't feel comfortable doing so (because IANAL, and because I figured Apple probably has a copyright on the license itself), so I resorted to the LGPL...if anyone sees any problems with this, please let me know.
- Stephen
Suggest that you use SqueakL instead. LGPL might be too much and not enough to serve your purposes -- and according to Stallman, is incompatible (I disagree). If you are concerned about compatibility, a safe solution is the Larry Wall solution, a disjunctive dual license, LGPL or Squeak-L.
On Wednesday, August 1, 2001, at 12:13 PM, Stephen Pair wrote:
Kats is an in-memory transaction service for Smalltalk (Squeak specifically). You'll find the downloads and information at: http://spair.swiki.net/kats
It's a 0.1 alpha release with very little documentation. Briefly, a few of the features:
- multi-level transactions
- two-phase commit protocol
- compiler modifications to allow transparent support for transactions
- object locking (for pessimistic concurrency...read, write, and
exclusive locks)
- customizable conflict detection algorithm (default just detects any
concurrent mutations (on any inst var) of the same objects)
- a transaction explorer (and modified process browser to show the
transaction associated with a process)
- a transactional inspector for viewing the state of objects in a given
"state context" (transaction)
- a transactional workspace to evaluate expressions in the context of a
given transaction
- an optional "execution context" model for transactions (built mainly
to highlight differences in this system with traditional TP monitors)
- a transaction aspect installer (for adding/removing transaction
capabilities to existing classes)
- a TxObject class, which can be subclassed for automatic transaction
support
- a couple of special transactional classes to illustrate specializing
the conflict detection algorithm (TxCounter and TxBag)
I wanted to release this under a license compatible with the Squeak license and basically require that derivative works be required be released under the same open source license as the original while allowing both commercial and non-commercial use of the transaction system. I started modifying the Squeak license, but didn't feel comfortable doing so (because IANAL, and because I figured Apple probably has a copyright on the license itself), so I resorted to the LGPL...if anyone sees any problems with this, please let me know.
- Stephen
Stephen Pair wrote:
I wanted to release this under a license compatible with the Squeak license and basically require that derivative works be required be released under the same open source license as the original while allowing both commercial and non-commercial use of the transaction system. I started modifying the Squeak license, but didn't feel comfortable doing so (because IANAL, and because I figured Apple probably has a copyright on the license itself), so I resorted to the LGPL...if anyone sees any problems with this, please let me know.
- Stephen
I also wonder what the "best" license for a goodie is. I want something in the spirit of the Squeak license and not as restrict as gpl. How about the bsd license ?
Karl
How about Squeak-L?
Seriously, there is simply no real reasonable alternative at this time -- at least if you are concerned about the legal consequences of the licensing. And there are no other meaningful reasons to be concerned about a license.
My recommendation is to adopt Squeak-L, or at least, to dual license (if you are comfortable with the risk that a broader license does not violate your obligations under Squeak-L).
Anything else creates danger, and in some cases grave danger, for those who use the works or derive works from the goodie, and limits the chances for broader distribution, and certainly for publication, of the goodie.
On Wednesday, August 1, 2001, at 12:56 PM, Karl Ramberg wrote:
Stephen Pair wrote:
I wanted to release this under a license compatible with the Squeak license and basically require that derivative works be required be released under the same open source license as the original while allowing both commercial and non-commercial use of the transaction system. I started modifying the Squeak license, but didn't feel comfortable doing so (because IANAL, and because I figured Apple probably has a copyright on the license itself), so I resorted to the LGPL...if anyone sees any problems with this, please let me know.
- Stephen
I also wonder what the "best" license for a goodie is. I want something in the spirit of the Squeak license and not as restrict as gpl. How about the bsd license ?
Karl
Andrew, would you mind doing a templated version of the SqueakL that removes the apple specific and font related things? I started doing that myself, but when I got into the stuff about exporting and citing specific statutes, I became less confident about what I was doing. Maybe it's already been done?
- Stephen
-----Original Message----- From: squeak-dev-admin@lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak-dev-admin@lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Andrew C. Greenberg Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 1:25 PM To: squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Subject: Re: Licenses for goodies Re: [ANN] kats-0.1a - a smalltalk transaction service
How about Squeak-L?
Seriously, there is simply no real reasonable alternative at this time -- at least if you are concerned about the legal consequences of the licensing. And there are no other meaningful reasons to be concerned about a license.
My recommendation is to adopt Squeak-L, or at least, to dual license (if you are comfortable with the risk that a broader license does not violate your obligations under Squeak-L).
Anything else creates danger, and in some cases grave danger, for those who use the works or derive works from the goodie, and limits the chances for broader distribution, and certainly for publication, of the goodie.
On Wednesday, August 1, 2001, at 12:56 PM, Karl Ramberg wrote:
Stephen Pair wrote:
I wanted to release this under a license compatible with
the Squeak
license and basically require that derivative works be required be released under the same open source license as the original while allowing both commercial and non-commercial use of the transaction system. I started modifying the Squeak license, but didn't feel comfortable doing so (because IANAL, and because I figured Apple probably has a copyright on the license itself), so I
resorted to the
LGPL...if anyone sees any problems with this, please let me know.
- Stephen
I also wonder what the "best" license for a goodie is. I want something in the spirit of the Squeak license and not as
restrict as
gpl. How about the bsd license ?
Karl
How can you remove the Apple-specific provisions without removing the corresponding content?
One approach would be to replace the "no less favorable to Apple" language with "no less favorable to Licensors," where the latter term is defined to include Apple and subsequent licensors, but I'm not sure that is a good thing. Right now, all we have to do is to talk Apple into changing its mind. If we promote a more "generic" agreement that includes interim developers in the benefit of the "no less favorable" provision, then we will need ALL subsequent developers to sign on to the license change.
On Wednesday, August 1, 2001, at 02:31 PM, Stephen Pair wrote:
Andrew, would you mind doing a templated version of the SqueakL that removes the apple specific and font related things? I started doing that myself, but when I got into the stuff about exporting and citing specific statutes, I became less confident about what I was doing. Maybe it's already been done?
- Stephen
-----Original Message----- From: squeak-dev-admin@lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak-dev-admin@lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Andrew C. Greenberg Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 1:25 PM To: squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Subject: Re: Licenses for goodies Re: [ANN] kats-0.1a - a smalltalk transaction service
How about Squeak-L?
Seriously, there is simply no real reasonable alternative at this time -- at least if you are concerned about the legal consequences of the licensing. And there are no other meaningful reasons to be concerned about a license.
My recommendation is to adopt Squeak-L, or at least, to dual license (if you are comfortable with the risk that a broader license does not violate your obligations under Squeak-L).
Anything else creates danger, and in some cases grave danger, for those who use the works or derive works from the goodie, and limits the chances for broader distribution, and certainly for publication, of the goodie.
On Wednesday, August 1, 2001, at 12:56 PM, Karl Ramberg wrote:
Stephen Pair wrote:
I wanted to release this under a license compatible with
the Squeak
license and basically require that derivative works be required be released under the same open source license as the original while allowing both commercial and non-commercial use of the transaction system. I started modifying the Squeak license, but didn't feel comfortable doing so (because IANAL, and because I figured Apple probably has a copyright on the license itself), so I
resorted to the
LGPL...if anyone sees any problems with this, please let me know.
- Stephen
I also wonder what the "best" license for a goodie is. I want something in the spirit of the Squeak license and not as
restrict as
gpl. How about the bsd license ?
Karl
The Squeak license specifically allows for other/derivative licenses so long as they are no less protective of Apple's rights. More to the point, since a goodie does not INCLUDE Squeak, but rather runs WITH Squeak, it should be sufficient to remove (or just IGNORE) the font issues in the GOODIE license. If you wish to be particularly paranoid, you can add a reference stating that the goodie is intended for use in the Squeak environment, which is in turn covered by the Squeak license.
--- Noel
"Noel J. Bergman" noel@devtech.com is widely believed to have written:
The Squeak license specifically allows for other/derivative licenses so long as they are no less protective of Apple's rights. More to the point, since a goodie does not INCLUDE Squeak, but rather runs WITH Squeak, it should be sufficient to remove (or just IGNORE) the font issues in the GOODIE license.
We could ignore the font issues in the main image as well if the new fonts arranged by Duane Maxwell were installed instead of the Apple ones.
tim
Perhaps the best thing is for someone to just go ahead and doit. Make an alternative squeak image without the offending fonts, cleanup the license accordingly (and get it blessed by opensource.org while you're at it), and make it available for download somewhere with the new license. It should still work with most of the change sets coming from the update server (except any that are somehow dependent on the Apple fonts). Maybe once all of that has been done, and any glitches worked out, maybe then SqC will consider adopting it and the license for squeak.org.
- Stephen
-----Original Message----- From: squeak-dev-admin@lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak-dev-admin@lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Tim Rowledge Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 1:12 PM To: squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Subject: RE: Licenses for goodies Re: [ANN] kats-0.1a - a smalltalk transaction service
"Noel J. Bergman" noel@devtech.com is widely believed to have written:
The Squeak license specifically allows for other/derivative
licenses
so long as they are no less protective of Apple's rights.
More to the
point, since a goodie does not INCLUDE Squeak, but rather runs WITH Squeak, it should be sufficient to remove (or just IGNORE) the font issues in the GOODIE license.
We could ignore the font issues in the main image as well if the new fonts arranged by Duane Maxwell were installed instead of the Apple ones.
tim
Tim Rowledge, tim@sumeru.stanford.edu, http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim Useful > random insult:- Life by Norman Rockwell, but screenplay by Stephen King.
As a lawyer practicing in this field, I note that if representing a defendant in such a case, this is the argument I would make. If I were representing a plaintiff, I'd make another argument, to the extent you aren't protecting sufficiently my remarks, and then show the fact-finder a copy of your program displaying the fonts. You would pointedly explain how the display of "other fonts" was not from your code, and so forth, but then you would have to make that argument.
Now, from a practical point of view, none of that matters. Assume you are representing a corporate entity and asked whether they can use Squeak for their ongoing development, including your goodie. ANY question about the propriety and applicability of a license will lead to a negative conclusion. At some point, the non Squeak-L licensing of goodies is too remote to be worth reviewing, and will just get dinged as soon as the issue is raised.
I strongly recommend against lawyering your own licenses -- particularly in this scenario. I would keep the license as-is, until Squeak itself modifies the overall license. Failure to do so will likely result in having the derivative work marginalized and/or ignored. It will also make it a legally difficult challenge for incorporation of the goodie in the image or distribution of the goodie with Squeak, whether or not part of the image.
On Thursday, August 2, 2001, at 12:30 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
The Squeak license specifically allows for other/derivative licenses so long as they are no less protective of Apple's rights. More to the point, since a goodie does not INCLUDE Squeak, but rather runs WITH Squeak, it should be sufficient to remove (or just IGNORE) the font issues in the GOODIE license. If you wish to be particularly paranoid, you can add a reference stating that the goodie is intended for use in the Squeak environment, which is in turn covered by the Squeak license.
--- Noel
If I wanted to have the same protections against liability that the SqueakL gives Apple for some goodie that I've written...is it sufficient to simply distribute the code under the SqueakL? Does that give me the same protections that it gives Apple? Also, how do I distinguish (legally) the code for which I hold the copyright from that which Apple (or others) holds the copyright? Do I simply need a reasonable (and legally defensable) mechanism for making that known to users of the software? Are the authors initials in methods sufficient for this purpose?
- Stephen
----- (c)2001 Stephen Pair, spair@acm.org - This email is licensed for use under the terms of the Mozilla Public License (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mozilla1.0.html)
-----Original Message----- From: squeak-dev-admin@lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak-dev-admin@lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Andrew C. Greenberg Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 2:12 PM To: squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Subject: Re: Licenses for goodies Re: [ANN] kats-0.1a - a smalltalk transaction service
As a lawyer practicing in this field, I note that if representing a defendant in such a case, this is the argument I would make. If I were representing a plaintiff, I'd make another argument, to the extent you aren't protecting sufficiently my remarks, and then show the fact-finder a copy of your program displaying the fonts. You would pointedly explain how the display of "other fonts" was not from your code, and so forth, but then you would have to make that argument.
Now, from a practical point of view, none of that matters. Assume you are representing a corporate entity and asked whether they can use Squeak for their ongoing development, including your goodie. ANY question about the propriety and applicability of a license will lead to a negative conclusion. At some point, the non Squeak-L licensing of goodies is too remote to be worth reviewing, and will just get dinged as soon as the issue is raised.
I strongly recommend against lawyering your own licenses -- particularly in this scenario. I would keep the license as-is, until Squeak itself modifies the overall license. Failure to do so will likely result in having the derivative work marginalized and/or ignored. It will also make it a legally difficult challenge for incorporation of the goodie in the image or distribution of the goodie with Squeak, whether or not part of the image.
On Thursday, August 2, 2001, at 12:30 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
The Squeak license specifically allows for other/derivative
licenses
so long as they are no less protective of Apple's rights. More to
the point,
since a goodie does not INCLUDE Squeak, but rather runs WITH Squeak, it should be sufficient to remove (or just IGNORE) the font issues in the GOODIE license. If you wish to be particularly paranoid, you can add a
reference stating
that the goodie is intended for use in the Squeak
environment, which is
in turn covered by the Squeak license.
--- Noel
To the extent the answers to these questions are very important to you, I will need to refer you to counsel to answer them. Few legal questions can be answered in the abstract, and thus, no reasonable answer can be given based solely on this e-mail. The question concerning "the same protections that it gives Apple" is too broadly phrased to reasonably offer any advice other than, perhaps, "it depends." I can offer no legal advice here, but the following principles may be of interest to you when bringing these points to the attention of counsel:
Unless a work made for hire, the author owns a copyright for each and every original work of authorship they have fixed in tangible media, regardless of registration or notice provisions. Registration and notice can give certain legal benefits to the party owning the copyright and may be appropriate, but are not necessary for ownership or an action for infringement to accrue. The legal sufficiency of a copyright notice depends upon the work and the nature of publication, but a notice should include, at least, the word "Copyright", "Copr." or a c-in-circle (not a c-in-paren), the year of publication and the name of the copyright owner. The words "all rights reserved" has additional benefits in some nations.
On Thursday, August 2, 2001, at 02:38 PM, Stephen Pair wrote:
If I wanted to have the same protections against liability that the SqueakL gives Apple for some goodie that I've written...is it sufficient to simply distribute the code under the SqueakL? Does that give me the same protections that it gives Apple? Also, how do I distinguish (legally) the code for which I hold the copyright from that which Apple (or others) holds the copyright? Do I simply need a reasonable (and legally defensable) mechanism for making that known to users of the software? Are the authors initials in methods sufficient for this purpose?
- Stephen
(c)2001 Stephen Pair, spair@acm.org - This email is licensed for use under the terms of the Mozilla Public License (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mozilla1.0.html)
-----Original Message----- From: squeak-dev-admin@lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak-dev-admin@lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Andrew C. Greenberg Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 2:12 PM To: squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Subject: Re: Licenses for goodies Re: [ANN] kats-0.1a - a smalltalk transaction service
As a lawyer practicing in this field, I note that if representing a defendant in such a case, this is the argument I would make. If I were representing a plaintiff, I'd make another argument, to the extent you aren't protecting sufficiently my remarks, and then show the fact-finder a copy of your program displaying the fonts. You would pointedly explain how the display of "other fonts" was not from your code, and so forth, but then you would have to make that argument.
Now, from a practical point of view, none of that matters. Assume you are representing a corporate entity and asked whether they can use Squeak for their ongoing development, including your goodie. ANY question about the propriety and applicability of a license will lead to a negative conclusion. At some point, the non Squeak-L licensing of goodies is too remote to be worth reviewing, and will just get dinged as soon as the issue is raised.
I strongly recommend against lawyering your own licenses -- particularly in this scenario. I would keep the license as-is, until Squeak itself modifies the overall license. Failure to do so will likely result in having the derivative work marginalized and/or ignored. It will also make it a legally difficult challenge for incorporation of the goodie in the image or distribution of the goodie with Squeak, whether or not part of the image.
On Thursday, August 2, 2001, at 12:30 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
The Squeak license specifically allows for other/derivative
licenses
so long as they are no less protective of Apple's rights. More to
the point,
since a goodie does not INCLUDE Squeak, but rather runs WITH Squeak, it should be sufficient to remove (or just IGNORE) the font issues in the GOODIE license. If you wish to be particularly paranoid, you can add a
reference stating
that the goodie is intended for use in the Squeak
environment, which is
in turn covered by the Squeak license.
--- Noel
Thanks for the analysis. Perhaps I can be a little more specific. If I were to distribute some source code under the terms of SqueakL (this could be any software, not affiliated in any way with Squeak itself), would (for example) section 3 (Disclaimer of Warranty) apply my software, even though the language explicitly says "Apple Software" and "Apple"? I guess I am confused as to how that would apply to my software by simply stating that the software is provided under the terms of SqueakL. In other words, I would like a clause that disclaims any warranty to apply to my software, and I'm failing to see how SqueakL (as is written) would accomplish that.
- Stephen
-----Original Message----- From: squeak-dev-admin@lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak-dev-admin@lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Andrew C. Greenberg Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 3:26 PM To: squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Subject: Re: Licenses for goodies Re: [ANN] kats-0.1a - a smalltalk transaction service
To the extent the answers to these questions are very important to you, I will need to refer you to counsel to answer them. Few legal questions can be answered in the abstract, and thus, no reasonable answer can be given based solely on this e-mail. The question concerning "the same protections that it gives Apple" is too broadly phrased to reasonably offer any advice other than, perhaps, "it depends." I can offer no legal advice here, but the following principles may be of interest to you when bringing these points to the attention of counsel:
Unless a work made for hire, the author owns a copyright for each and every original work of authorship they have fixed in tangible media, regardless of registration or notice provisions. Registration and notice can give certain legal benefits to the party owning the copyright and may be appropriate, but are not necessary for ownership or an action for infringement to accrue. The legal sufficiency of a copyright notice depends upon the work and the nature of publication, but a notice should include, at least, the word "Copyright", "Copr." or a c-in-circle (not a c-in-paren), the year of publication and the name of the copyright owner. The words "all rights reserved" has additional benefits in some nations.
On Thursday, August 2, 2001, at 02:38 PM, Stephen Pair wrote:
If I wanted to have the same protections against liability that the SqueakL gives Apple for some goodie that I've written...is it sufficient to simply distribute the code under the SqueakL?
Does that
give me the same protections that it gives Apple? Also, how do I distinguish (legally) the code for which I hold the copyright from that
which Apple
(or others) holds the copyright? Do I simply need a reasonable (and legally defensable) mechanism for making that known to users of the software? Are the authors initials in methods sufficient for this purpose?
- Stephen
(c)2001 Stephen Pair, spair@acm.org - This email is
licensed for use
under the terms of the Mozilla Public License (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mozilla1.0.html)
-----Original Message----- From: squeak-dev-admin@lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak-dev-admin@lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Andrew C. Greenberg Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 2:12 PM To: squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Subject: Re: Licenses for goodies Re: [ANN] kats-0.1a - a
smalltalk
transaction service
As a lawyer practicing in this field, I note that if
representing a
defendant in such a case, this is the argument I would make. If I were representing a plaintiff, I'd make another argument, to the extent you aren't protecting sufficiently my remarks, and then show the fact-finder a copy of your program displaying the fonts. You would pointedly explain how the display of "other fonts" was not from your code, and so forth, but then you would have to make that argument.
Now, from a practical point of view, none of that matters.
Assume you
are representing a corporate entity and asked whether they can use Squeak for their ongoing development, including your goodie. ANY question about the propriety and applicability of a license will lead to a negative conclusion. At some point, the non Squeak-L
licensing of
goodies is too remote to be worth reviewing, and will just get dinged as soon as the issue is raised.
I strongly recommend against lawyering your own licenses -- particularly in this scenario. I would keep the license
as-is, until
Squeak itself modifies the overall license. Failure to do so will
likely result in
having the derivative work marginalized and/or ignored.
It will also
make it a legally difficult challenge for incorporation of the goodie in the image or distribution of the goodie with Squeak, whether or not part of the image.
On Thursday, August 2, 2001, at 12:30 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
The Squeak license specifically allows for other/derivative
licenses
so long as they are no less protective of Apple's rights. More to
the point,
since a goodie does not INCLUDE Squeak, but rather runs WITH Squeak, it should be sufficient to remove (or just IGNORE) the font
issues in
the GOODIE license. If you wish to be particularly paranoid, you can add a
reference stating
that the goodie is intended for use in the Squeak
environment, which is
in turn covered by the Squeak license.
--- Noel
Gee!! Now how can I honestly propagate half the lawyers jokes you just nullified with this kind of post? Now those jokes are no longer beyond a shadow of a doubt.
More power to you! :-) edwin
-----Original Message----- From: squeak-dev-admin@lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak-dev-admin@lists.squeakfoundation.org]On Behalf Of Andrew C. Greenberg Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 11:12 AM To: squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Subject: Re: Licenses for goodies Re: [ANN] kats-0.1a - a smalltalk transaction service
As a lawyer practicing in this field, I note that if representing a defendant in such a case, this is the argument I would make. If I were representing a plaintiff, I'd make another argument, to the extent you aren't protecting sufficiently my remarks, and then show the fact-finder a copy of your program displaying the fonts. You would pointedly explain how the display of "other fonts" was not from your code, and so forth, but then you would have to make that argument.
Now, from a practical point of view, none of that matters. Assume you are representing a corporate entity and asked whether they can use Squeak for their ongoing development, including your goodie. ANY question about the propriety and applicability of a license will lead to a negative conclusion. At some point, the non Squeak-L licensing of goodies is too remote to be worth reviewing, and will just get dinged as soon as the issue is raised.
I strongly recommend against lawyering your own licenses -- particularly in this scenario. I would keep the license as-is, until Squeak itself modifies the overall license. Failure to do so will likely result in having the derivative work marginalized and/or ignored. It will also make it a legally difficult challenge for incorporation of the goodie in the image or distribution of the goodie with Squeak, whether or not part of the image.
On Thursday, August 2, 2001, at 12:30 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
The Squeak license specifically allows for other/derivative licenses so long as they are no less protective of Apple's rights. More to the point, since a goodie does not INCLUDE Squeak, but rather runs WITH Squeak, it should be sufficient to remove (or just IGNORE) the font issues in the GOODIE license. If you wish to be particularly paranoid, you can add a reference stating that the goodie is intended for use in the Squeak environment, which is in turn covered by the Squeak license.
--- Noel
"Andrew C. Greenberg" wrote:
How about Squeak-L?
Sounds good to me. Is legally correct to change/remove words in the exitsting license that do not apply for a goodie by me, like the Apple stuff etc ? Karl
Seriously, there is simply no real reasonable alternative at this time -- at least if you are concerned about the legal consequences of the licensing. And there are no other meaningful reasons to be concerned about a license.
My recommendation is to adopt Squeak-L, or at least, to dual license (if you are comfortable with the risk that a broader license does not violate your obligations under Squeak-L).
Anything else creates danger, and in some cases grave danger, for those who use the works or derive works from the goodie, and limits the chances for broader distribution, and certainly for publication, of the goodie.
On Wednesday, August 1, 2001, at 12:56 PM, Karl Ramberg wrote:
Stephen Pair wrote:
I wanted to release this under a license compatible with the Squeak license and basically require that derivative works be required be released under the same open source license as the original while allowing both commercial and non-commercial use of the transaction system. I started modifying the Squeak license, but didn't feel comfortable doing so (because IANAL, and because I figured Apple probably has a copyright on the license itself), so I resorted to the LGPL...if anyone sees any problems with this, please let me know.
- Stephen
I also wonder what the "best" license for a goodie is. I want something in the spirit of the Squeak license and not as restrict as gpl. How about the bsd license ?
Karl
There is a form for subsequent licensees at the bottom. You could follow that approach. Most people just say "subject to Squeak-L" and provide a copy of the license.
On Wednesday, August 1, 2001, at 02:38 PM, Karl Ramberg wrote:
"Andrew C. Greenberg" wrote:
How about Squeak-L?
Sounds good to me. Is legally correct to change/remove words in the exitsting license that do not apply for a goodie by me, like the Apple stuff etc ? Karl
Seriously, there is simply no real reasonable alternative at this time -- at least if you are concerned about the legal consequences of the licensing. And there are no other meaningful reasons to be concerned about a license.
My recommendation is to adopt Squeak-L, or at least, to dual license (if you are comfortable with the risk that a broader license does not violate your obligations under Squeak-L).
Anything else creates danger, and in some cases grave danger, for those who use the works or derive works from the goodie, and limits the chances for broader distribution, and certainly for publication, of the goodie.
On Wednesday, August 1, 2001, at 12:56 PM, Karl Ramberg wrote:
Stephen Pair wrote:
I wanted to release this under a license compatible with the Squeak license and basically require that derivative works be required be released under the same open source license as the original while allowing both commercial and non-commercial use of the transaction system. I started modifying the Squeak license, but didn't feel comfortable doing so (because IANAL, and because I figured Apple probably has a copyright on the license itself), so I resorted to the LGPL...if anyone sees any problems with this, please let me know.
- Stephen
I also wonder what the "best" license for a goodie is. I want something in the spirit of the Squeak license and not as restrict as gpl. How about the bsd license ?
Karl
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Andrew C. Greenberg -
Edwin Pilobello -
Karl Ramberg -
Noel J. Bergman -
Stephen Pair -
Tim Rowledge