Re: Re: project hosting *Important clarification*

No objection to Google project hosting, as I have no preference.

It is the inventor's call (David Ungar, Randall Smith and Dave Griswold).
I am looking forward to some fun.

There is no real Makefile for the vm sources, but a handful of MS-DOS .bat files.
Any plans on converting them into NMakefile, Sun or GNU Makefile ?

I have written and maintained GNU Makefiles since 1991; I do not claim to be an expert but I can offer assistance.

I have started with a simple Makefile so far.
One of my objective is ... portability (to MacOS X, PPC).
A looooooong way to go, I know.

I expect that portability to other x86 platforms is a more appropriate immediate project goal, which I intend to support, of course.


Ciao, derweil,
--
Carlo

----- Original Message ----
From: davegriswold9 <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 9:53:03 PM
Subject: [strongtalk] Re: project hosting   *Important clarification*

                           Important clarification:  after checking this out with Sun, it appears
 that the license with the nuclear clause is just the obsolete license
 from before the most recent release, and should have been removed. 
 I'll get a new version of the source release from Sun with the
 confusing obsolete license file removed, and we can proceed with
 whatever hosting site we want.
 
 Whew!
 
 Anyone have any problems with Google Project Hosting?
 
 -Dave
 
 --- In strongtalk@yahoogro ups.com, davegriswold9 <no_reply@.. .> wrote:
 >
 > The source license is *almost* a BSD or MIT/X-style license;
 > unfortunately for some reason Sun felt the need to add the single
 clause 
 > 
 > "You acknowledge that Software is not designed, licensed or intended
 > for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any
 > nuclear facility."
 > 
 > That is NOT part of the BSD license, and in legalese, *almost* isn't
 > good enough.  On the Google site, for example, there isn't any
 > flexibility: it is a drop down list box on the project creation page
 > where you choose your license from the canned set.  You cannot provide
 > your own, add any language, or request an exception.  By choosing it,
 > *we* are certifying that it actually is an approved open source
 > license; I don't think OSI would like the above clause.
 > 
 > I really hope this gratuitous departure on the part of Sun's license
 > doesn't become a major bugaboo.  Gilad, is there any chance of getting
 > Sun to revisit this?  An argument would be that the binary license
 > already doesn't have such a clause, and it would make sense for the
 > licenses to match.  The license already disclaims all liability, so
 > the nuclear facility clause is redundant anyway.  Additional
 > ammunition is that this doesn't seem to be a problem for other
 > companies that release open source, and is highly non-standard. 
 > Lawyers like to follow the legal crowd.  You might also argue that
 > they are going to face this same problem when open sourcing the Java
 > VM, so it might be better for them to revisit it now, as a test case
 > for the Java release, and so they don't have multiple license
 > variations bouncing around.
 > -Dave
 > 
 > --- In strongtalk@yahoogro ups.com, Gilad Bracha <gilad@> wrote:
 > >
 > > The license is a BSD license.  If the wording varies a bit, I assume  
 > > the hosting service should be able to accept it.
 > > 
 > > On Sep 18, 2006, at 8:58 AM, Carlo Dapor wrote:
 > > 
 > > >
 > > > Whether you will decide on tigris.org, SF.net or berlios.de, I am  
 > > > sure you have to "guarantee" that the project license conforms to  
 > > > one of the many established Open Source licenses.
 > > >
 > > > For instance, tigris.org allows only any one of the following  
 > > > licenses (seehttp://www. tigris.org/ servlets/ LicenseList):
 > > >
 > > > *None*
 > > > Apache License
 > > > BSD License
 > > > CollabNet/Tigris. org Apache-style license
 > > > Common Public License
 > > > GNU General Public License
 > > > GNU Lesser Public License
 > > > Other OSI-certified license
 > > > X/MIT License
 > > > zlib/libpng license
 > > >
 > > > I think that only "Other OSI-certified license" fits the bill,
 right ?
 > > >
 > > > I remember a while back, NASM (network-wide x86 assembler) was  
 > > > hosted on SF.net.
 > > > Then someone actually found out that its license was not
 compatible  
 > > > with Open Source (http://www.opensour ce.org), so SF.net suspended  
 > > > NASM on sf.net until the NASM team made its mind up.  Nowadays I  
 > > > believe NASM is back on SF.net.
 > > >
 > > > Dave, you already expressed a NO-GO with Google because of their  
 > > > license policy.
 > > > In case you do not want to re-license StrongTalk, and keep the  
 > > > current one, you have to have it approved/certified by  
 > > > OpenSource.org so as either SF.net / tigris.org accept it as a  
 > > > viable alternative to the more common ones: GPL, LGPL, Apache, BSD  
 > > > etc.
 > > >
 > > > Sorry for being  the bearer of not so great news.
 > > >
 > > >
 > > > Ciao, derweil,
 > > > --
 > > > Carlo
 > > >
 > > >
 > > > ----- Original Message ----
 > > > From: davegriswold9 <no_reply@yahoogroup s.com>
 > > > To: strongtalk@yahoogro ups.com
 > > > Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 1:47:43 AM
 > > > Subject: [strongtalk] project hosting
 > > >
 > > > Hi everyone,
 > > >
 > > > First, thanks for everyone's patience. It's been a slow startup,
 > > > since no one is working on this full-time right now, but I intend to
 > > > get all the basic development infrastructure in place this week.
 > > > Please bear with me.
 > > >
 > > > I have been planning on using Google Project Hosting, since people
 > > > have recommended it, but I have concluded that won't be possible,
 > > > since Google requires you to use one of their canned licenses; you
 > > > can't use your own open-source license, and we can't change the
 > > > license. So Google is out.
 > > >
 > > > I have heard some complaints about SourceForge. One alternative that
 > > > has been suggested is Tigris. It's not entirely clear that they
 would
 > > > take this project, since it may not fit into their perceived
 mission.
 > > >
 > > > So two questions for those of you out there that have plenty of
 > > > experience with this sort of stuff:
 > > >
 > > > 1) What are opinions on Tigris?
 > > > 2) Any other options people would recommend?
 > > >
 > > > Thanks,
 > > > Dave
 > > >
 > > >
 > > >
 > > >
 > > >
 > >
 >