Re: Re: Sublicensing seems possible

"Paul D. Fernhout" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I hope these license issues can be resolved -- but please think 
> carefully about the Disney issue when deciding how to proceed.
When Alan and the others were at Disney they were using Squeak under the
self-same Squeak-L that the rest of us were/are. Since they were
modifying and extending the system they _had_ to release those changes
under the SqueakL just like the rest of us. Surely that cuts Disney out
of the loop completely?

tim
-- 
Tim Rowledge, [email protected], http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
Useful random insult:- She doesn't suffer from insanity; she enjoys
every minute of it.
From [email protected] Fri Apr 04 22:22:16 2003
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 26960 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2003 22:22:15 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lucy.riskmetrics.com) (12.3.62.14)
  by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 4 Apr 2003 22:22:15 -0000
Received: from riskmetrics.com (w018.z064003232.det-mi.dsl.cnc.net
	[64.3.232.18]) by lucy.riskmetrics.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet
	Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13)
	id 2H6NDQ3V; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 17:22:37 -0500
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 17:21:48 -0500
From: Doug Way <[email protected]>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation 
 <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Squeakfoundation]WeakArray bug (was Re: [UPDATES] 3.5gamma)
X-BeenThere: [email protected]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
List-Id: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
 <squeakfoundation.lists.squeakfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lnx-12.ams-2.theinternetone.net/pipermail/squeakfoundation>
List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 22:22:17 -0000


Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> 
> <shifting to sqf list>
> 
> That's an interesting point. Does that mean we actually delay 3.5, when
> the 3.6 update stream has already started? another question is, how did
> we get into gamma, when apparently, one of our two goals for the release
> isn't actually achieved?

Tim did mention this as a bug on March 14.  There wasn't any mention of
whether it was a serious enough problem to try to fix in 3.5, so I ignored it
for the moment, hoping that someone would come up with a fix.

It did appear to be possibly related to the ClassBuilder problem, but that
wasn't certain, either.  The problem occured with or without the ClassBuilder
fix.

Just now I did a quick check of when the bug was introduced.  I was guessing
that maybe Andreas introduced it with the ClassBuilder refactoring/cleanup in
3.4alpha, which was when the other ClassBuilder bug was introduced.  However,
that was not the case... I tested 3.2 and the bug is there, too.  Turns out
this bug is as old as the hills... the bug exists back in 2.6!  It does not
exist in 2.4, though.  (It's always nice to have old images lying around. :-) 
I didn't have a 2.5 image handy, though.)

So, given that the bug is 3+ years old, and we don't yet have a fix that we
agree on, I think it's pretty safe to say that we don't need to address this
in 3.5.  As soon as someone comes up with a good fix, we can include it in
3.6alpha.  (Maybe Brent's fix is sufficient, I don't know, but it hasn't
gotten any feedback yet.)

- Doug Way


> Daniel
> 
> Tim Rowledge <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Daniel Vainsencher <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > AFAICT, this fix is KCP territory. Unless there is a very good reason
> > > otherwise, I would await their recommendation (and not delay the
> > > release).
> > Well since the 3.5 release was purported to be mostly to include a fix
> > for a very similar bug and the bug in question has pretty similar
> > effects - cannot recompile a number of classes - I'd say that without a
> > fix we really shouldn't even consider 3.5 in beta in any meaningful
> > sense.
> >
> > tim
> > --
> > Tim Rowledge, [email protected], http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
> > Spellchecker not found.  Press -- to continue ...
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
From [email protected] Sat Apr 05 00:12:32 2003
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 12292 invoked from network); 5 Apr 2003 00:12:32 -0000
Received: from mxout3.netvision.net.il (194.90.9.24)
  by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 5 Apr 2003 00:12:32 -0000
Received: from aSqueakSystem ([80.178.108.27]) by mxout3.netvision.net.il
 (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.08 (built Dec  6 2002))
 with SMTPA id <[email protected]> for
 [email protected]; Sat,
 05 Apr 2003 03:12:30 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2003 03:14:05 +0200
From: Daniel Vainsencher <[email protected]>
Subject: [Squeakfoundation]WeakArray bug (was Re: [UPDATES] 3.5gamma)
To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
 <[email protected]>
Message-id: <[email protected]>
X-Mailer: Celeste 2.0.5174
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-BeenThere: [email protected]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
List-Id: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
 <squeakfoundation.lists.squeakfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lnx-12.ams-2.theinternetone.net/pipermail/squeakfoundation>
List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2003 00:12:33 -0000

About the 3.5/3.6 decision, sounds reasonable to me. 

About why we got to the state where one of us says a bug critical enough
to stop the release from going out, when we're in gamma - I think we
included the fix with the implicit goal of "fixing the class builder"
but with the explicit SUnit test of "classes with instance variables and
subclasses can be reshaped properly". 

Nobody said "this fix does X, which is enough. It doesn't do Y, but we
can live with that", where Y would be "allow the whole hierarchy to get
rebuilt", for example.

We need more explicit reviews.

Daniel

Doug Way <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> > 
> > <shifting to sqf list>
> > 
> > That's an interesting point. Does that mean we actually delay 3.5, when
> > the 3.6 update stream has already started? another question is, how did
> > we get into gamma, when apparently, one of our two goals for the release
> > isn't actually achieved?
> 
> Tim did mention this as a bug on March 14.  There wasn't any mention of
> whether it was a serious enough problem to try to fix in 3.5, so I ignored it
> for the moment, hoping that someone would come up with a fix.
> 
> It did appear to be possibly related to the ClassBuilder problem, but that
> wasn't certain, either.  The problem occured with or without the ClassBuilder
> fix.
> 
> Just now I did a quick check of when the bug was introduced.  I was guessing
> that maybe Andreas introduced it with the ClassBuilder refactoring/cleanup in
> 3.4alpha, which was when the other ClassBuilder bug was introduced.  However,
> that was not the case... I tested 3.2 and the bug is there, too.  Turns out
> this bug is as old as the hills... the bug exists back in 2.6!  It does not
> exist in 2.4, though.  (It's always nice to have old images lying around. :-) 
> I didn't have a 2.5 image handy, though.)
> 
> So, given that the bug is 3+ years old, and we don't yet have a fix that we
> agree on, I think it's pretty safe to say that we don't need to address this
> in 3.5.  As soon as someone comes up with a good fix, we can include it in
> 3.6alpha.  (Maybe Brent's fix is sufficient, I don't know, but it hasn't
> gotten any feedback yet.)
> 
> - Doug Way
> 
> 
> > Daniel
> > 
> > Tim Rowledge <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Daniel Vainsencher <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > AFAICT, this fix is KCP territory. Unless there is a very good reason
> > > > otherwise, I would await their recommendation (and not delay the
> > > > release).
> > > Well since the 3.5 release was purported to be mostly to include a fix
> > > for a very similar bug and the bug in question has pretty similar
> > > effects - cannot recompile a number of classes - I'd say that without a
> > > fix we really shouldn't even consider 3.5 in beta in any meaningful
> > > sense.
> > >
> > > tim
> > > --
> > > Tim Rowledge, [email protected], http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
> > > Spellchecker not found.  Press -- to continue ...
> > _______________________________________________
> > Squeakfoundation mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
From [email protected] Sat Apr 05 00:25:38 2003
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 18654 invoked from network); 5 Apr 2003 00:25:37 -0000
Received: from mail.gmx.net (213.165.65.60)
  by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 5 Apr 2003 00:25:37 -0000
Received: (qmail 22345 invoked by uid 65534); 5 Apr 2003 00:25:37 -0000
Received: from pD9533734.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO atlantis) (217.83.55.52)
  by mail.gmx.net (mp004-rz3) with SMTP; 05 Apr 2003 02:25:37 +0200
From: "Andreas Raab" <[email protected]>
To: "'Discussing the Squeak Foundation'"
	<[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [Squeakfoundation]Re: Sublicensing seems possible
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 02:25:24 +0200
Message-ID: <000001c2fb09$da544b30$8ef7fea9@atlantis>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-BeenThere: [email protected]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
List-Id: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
 <squeakfoundation.lists.squeakfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lnx-12.ams-2.theinternetone.net/pipermail/squeakfoundation>
List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2003 00:25:39 -0000

> > I hope these license issues can be resolved -- but please think=20
> > carefully about the Disney issue when deciding how to proceed.
> When Alan and the others were at Disney they were using=20
> Squeak under the self-same Squeak-L that the rest of us were/are.

That's not even the point. We *released* new Squeak versions under the =
very
same Squeak-L (where it is important to note that we did not release all =
of
the code we wrote at Disney under Squeak-L - there were various projects
which never made it out of Disney). We actually had a pretty clear state =
and
church separation while being there - Disney projects being Disney =
projects
(aka: proprietary Disney content, non-open source) and Squeak projects =
being
Squeak projects. Unless you want to change the license (in which case =
you'd
have to go to Disney again) there is nothing at all to worry about - =
Disney
knew about this (besides Squeak itself, anyone remember Panda3D? this =
went
up all the way to the top, too) and approved of it, thanks to Alan.

> Since they were modifying and extending the system they _had_
> to release those changes under the SqueakL just like the rest
> of us.

Slight correction: Squeak-L is not viral. It does not require you to =
release
modifications under Squeak-L. All it requires is to make the code =
"publicly
available". However, we *did* release the code under Squeak-L.

Cheers,
  - Andreas