Which is better if you want Smalltalk code to be includeable in the base Squeak?
MIT or LGPL?
I have a large Generator Package(s) that is all marked up as GPL in Dolphin Smalltalk.
I think that this Generator stuff could take a place alongside Collections and Streams in the base Squeak / Croquet image.
I am reluctant to think about porting from Dolphin to Squeak. I tend to sign myself up for things that I can't do. I'm gung ho for about a day and then reality sets in. It's easier just to talk. To dream. But I guess the idea that it might get into the Squeak image makes it more attractive. To try. To even think about.
( Some resistances come to mind. Perhaps it's not up to the generally accepted practice of including practically zero documentation? And could not be included for that reason? The change log is too big. There are long rants in there. poetics. nonsense. the included text looks like some Mandelbrot set? With too many usage examples and ideas written into the comments? )
Are there any automated ways of going from Dolphin to Squeak? File out Class by Class and fileIn and copy method by method? If I strip out some stuff from Dolphin Packages would they just fileIn to Squeak? But if there are no loose methods in Squeak Packages then the whole thing is impossible.
It would be cool if there was some standard way to transfer code between the different Smalltalks. But I guess they are just too different. And the idea of making a commonality comes and goes. But never sticks.
-Kjell
"Kjell" == Kjell Godo squeaklist@gmail.com writes:
Kjell> Which is better if you want Smalltalk code to be includeable in the base Kjell> Squeak?
Kjell> MIT or LGPL?
Since the LGPL is not acceptable at all for the Squeak core, MIT wins by default there. To be precise, you should look at the new Squeak license, and conform to it.
If you want to distribute your code outside the core (like on Squeakmap), LGPL is fine. However, keep in mind that some users will *not* be able to select GPL/LGPL for deployment, so you reduce the scope of usefulness for your tool.
Also note that unless you are the sole author (copyright holder in the eyes of the law), you can't relicense code at will. You will have to get hardcopy evidence of everyone who has contributed to agree. This is similar to the process that the Squeak core is currently undergoing.
Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
"Kjell" == Kjell Godo squeaklist@gmail.com writes:
Kjell> Which is better if you want Smalltalk code to be includeable in the base Kjell> Squeak?
Kjell> MIT or LGPL?
Since the LGPL is not acceptable at all for the Squeak core, MIT wins by default there.
Ditto for Croquet. No contributions will be accepted into core that aren't MIT-licensed.
Cheers, - Andreas
"Randal" == Randal L Schwartz merlyn@stonehenge.com writes:
Randal> Also note that unless you are the sole author (copyright holder in the Randal> eyes of the law), you can't relicense code at will. You will have to Randal> get hardcopy evidence of everyone who has contributed to agree. This Randal> is similar to the process that the Squeak core is currently Randal> undergoing.
And on re-reading your (oddly formatted :) message, I see that you intend to take code that has been distributed with Dolphin ST under the LGPL, and merely "port" it. Well, that's not going to release it from the LPGL, unless you get the permission from the original authors to relicense it in writing. Or, you can just write the code in a clean room from scratch, but you should wait a few months so that you don't accidentally do it the same way as the code you saw, which would be a derived work. Ugh.
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:05:03 -0700 "Kjell Godo" squeaklist@gmail.com wrote:
( Some resistances come to mind. Perhaps it's not up to the generally accepted practice of including practically zero documentation? And could not be included for that reason? The change log is too big. There are long rants in there. poetics. nonsense. the included text looks like some Mandelbrot set? With too many usage examples and ideas written into the comments? )
I see our resident poet is back :-).
http://www.google.com/search?q=picoverse+squeak
Gulik.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH - ! ! !
If you praise me I will fly through the ceiling and break my neck. If you pan me I will sweat and my palms will tingle. It's better if I don't read your replys. But that gets me nowhere.
Now Where is this new Squeak License.
Or as he said in Screamers: What Other Type?
On 3/27/08, Michael van der Gulik mikevdg@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:05:03 -0700 "Kjell Godo" squeaklist@gmail.com wrote:
( Some resistances come to mind. Perhaps it's not up to the generally accepted practice of including practically zero documentation? And could not be included for that reason? The change log is too big. There are long rants in there. poetics. nonsense. the
included
text looks like some Mandelbrot set? With too many usage examples and ideas written into the comments? )
I see our resident poet is back :-).
http://www.google.com/search?q=picoverse+squeak
Gulik.
-- Michael van der Gulik mikevdg@gmail.com
The Squeak License seems to be an old one from the Apple days.
I found the MIT license at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.phphttp://www.opensource.org/
Is this the one you are talking about? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MIT License
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. ==============================================
So it seems to me that this license means that anyone P can do whatever they want with The Software as long as the permission notice is included in the derivative work which would then give anybody else P1 the same rights in the derivative work? To do whatever they P1 want with the derivative work?
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:05 PM, Kjell Godo squeaklist@gmail.com wrote:
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH - ! ! !
If you praise me I will fly through the ceiling and break my neck. If you pan me I will sweat and my palms will tingle. It's better if I don't read your replys. But that gets me nowhere.
Now Where is this new Squeak License.
Or as he said in Screamers: What Other Type?
On 3/27/08, Michael van der Gulik mikevdg@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:05:03 -0700 "Kjell Godo" squeaklist@gmail.com wrote:
( Some resistances come to mind. Perhaps it's not up to the generally accepted practice of including practically zero documentation? And could not be included for that reason? The change
log
is too big. There are long rants in there. poetics. nonsense. the
included
text looks like some Mandelbrot set? With too many usage examples and ideas written into the comments? )
I see our resident poet is back :-).
http://www.google.com/search?q=picoverse+squeak
Gulik.
-- Michael van der Gulik mikevdg@gmail.com
Kjell Godo a écrit :
The Squeak License seems to be an old one from the Apple days.
I found the MIT license at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php http://www.opensource.org/
Is this the one you are talking about?
The MIT License
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.
==============================================
So it seems to me that this license means that anyone P can do whatever they want with The Software as long as the permission notice is included in the derivative work which would then give anybody else P1 the same rights in the derivative work? To do whatever they P1 want with the derivative work?
This applies to copy of the software (original soure code). If you distribute any other form (exe, dll, image...), then do what you want.
Nicolas
"Kjell" == Kjell Godo squeaklist@gmail.com writes:
Kjell> The Squeak License seems to be an old one from the Apple days. Kjell> I found the MIT license at Kjell> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.phphttp://www.opensource.org/
Kjell> Is this the one you are talking about?
Yes. That's the URL also mentioned here:
http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/uploads/6016/SqueakDistributionAgreement.pdf
which is the document being signed by past core contributors to relicense their individual contributions from the "old" Squeak-L to the modern MIT license.
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Andreas Raab -
Kjell Godo -
merlyn＠stonehenge.com -
Michael van der Gulik -
nicolas cellier