Hi pharoers What do you think? I think that we should not have any software parts whose license is not set clearly in Pharo. So I will remove WebClient from Pharo. I suggest that the people that want and know, group together and build an open-source one.
Stef On Aug 30, 2010, at 12:00 AM, Andreas Raab wrote: > Hi Sven, > > [cc: pharo list since I think there are some larger issues to discuss] > > First of all thank you for your continued interest in WebClient. It is nice > to see that people like to use it. However, I'm more than a bit surprised > about what you are saying below about having WebClient in Pharo 1.2. > Honestly, I was dumbfounded when I went to read some of the discussions on > the Pharo list. > > May I ask what the due diligence process is for including packages in Pharo? > I would have expected that the process includes 1) checking the project page > on SS for the license and 2) sending the author a courtesy note along the > lines of "hey we want to include your code, are you okay with that?" (in > particular if the author of the package isn't on the Pharo list and > consequently has no clue about what you're doing). > > 1. Regarding WebClient's license, please have a look at any of the following > repositories, all of which are under MIT: > > http://www.squeaksource.com/Balloon3D.html > http://www.squeaksource.com/CroquetGL.html > http://www.squeaksource.com/ToolBuilder.html > http://www.squeaksource.com/TweakCore.html > ... etc ... > > As you can see, when I mean to put code under the MIT license, I try to state > that by including a copy of the license on the front page of the repository > as well as setting the license field. Contrary to, for example, the following > repositories: > > http://www.squeaksource.com/ar.html > http://www.squeaksource.com/SqueakSSL.html > http://www.squeaksource.com/WebClient.html > > which are not (or not yet) under MIT. Obviously, I'm trying to be as clear as > possible on these matters, which is why I was pointing out that your > repository incorrectly claims that the version of WebClient in it is LGPLv2. > I'm surprised (and shocked) that apparently nobody in Pharo even tries to > find out what the license status for WebClient is. > > 2. Regarding my intentions / position you'll have to keep in mind that I > don't read the Pharo list. I tried to follow it in the past only to be faced > with several vicious attacks against Squeak and myself and as a consequence I > stopped reading it. Consequently, this is the first time anyone has ever > mentioned the inclusion of WebClient in Pharo to me. > > In short, my position is that we need more shared libraries, not more forks. > You will probably see the irony that I specifically didn't set a license on > WebClient to prevent such forks without any prior discussion (under the > hopelessly naive assumption that there would be some sort of due diligence > process) only to find out that you've forked WebClient already. How very > ironic indeed. > > Because of my position above, I think WebClient should be an external > package, loaded for example via Metacello configuration. In fact, that's > exactly why I provided a Metacello configuration to begin with. Can someone > perhaps explain where the urge to include (and consequently fork) WebClient > comes from? WebClient is a perfectly good external package and for the time > being I prefer it should stay that way. If you want to replace HTTPSocket, > then have a look at Squeak 4.2 which contains a very simple HTTPSocket > implementation that has hooks so that WebClient will be used if it's loaded. > > Regarding fixes for Pharo, as far as I know the only changes that I haven't > included was a bunch of #asString sprinkled all over the places, and the > abominations of replacing #squeakToUtf8 and #utf8ToSqueak with > "convert[From|To]WithConverter: UTF8TextConverter new". On both of these > issues I feel very strongly; I will not make the code substantially worse > only to deal with shortcomings of Pharo. So if you cannot come to a > reasonable resolution for these, you'll need the extension methods. Outside > of that, I believe that not only have I integrated all the fixes that have > been sent to me, I have also added several patches to WebClient-Pharo that > provide important fixes for (in Pharo broken) network operations without > which WebClient would not work in any released Pharo versions. > > Summary: > * I'm surprised and I'm shocked to see that there is apparently no due > diligence regarding new packages in Pharo. I find this in particular shocking > giving the wild claims on the Pharo web site that "From the beginning of > Pharo we have maintained a strict rule that every contributor has to sign our > license agreement." I haven't. (and geez, when did Michael got dropped from > the Pharo board?) > > * I don't want WebClient to be included in Pharo since this means you will be > producing a Pharo-only fork of WebClient which is counter-productive from my > perspective. I want WebClient to remain a shared loadable package with a > canonical source repository available to all forks of Squeak, including Pharo. > > * I have, and will continue to do so, integrate fixes for Pharo as long as I > consider them reasonable. If there is interest, I can also provide an updated > Metacello configuration; although that really just boils down to updating it > to the latest package versions. > > Cheers, > - Andreas > > On 8/29/2010 4:43 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: >> Andreas, >> >> The lastest fiddling that I did is now in PharoInBox: >> >> Name: WebClient-Core-SvenVanCaekenberghe.74 >> Author: SvenVanCaekenberghe >> Time: 27 August 2010, 1:59:46 pm >> UUID: d97ff218-9bde-4259-bf8a-f9d0fe116138 >> Ancestors: WebClient-Core-StephaneDucasse.73, WebClient-Core-pmm.73 >> >> merged in pharo-core 1.2 >> >> We're down to 2 unit test failures/errors againt your latest tests. >> >> A number of people including myself are interested, enthousiastic and >> willing to help bring WebClient to Pharo (1.1 and 1.2), and by using it, >> help it improve its core functionality. However, the current process, >> whereby you mostly ignore Pharo related fixes, makes that very difficult (we >> basically almost have to start over again with each commit you do, comparing >> changes becomes harder and harder). You can check the Pharo mailing lists. >> >> As I said before, it is your code and your decision what your standpoint is >> regarding portability (to Squeak derivatives and even other Smalltalks). I >> can understand it if you find it too much work. But I do think you should >> make it clear what your standpoint is. >> >> Regards, >> >> Sven >> >> On 29 Aug 2010, at 04:30, Andreas Raab wrote: >> >>> You're probably busy, so just a little "ping" :-) >>> >>> Cheers, >>> - Andreas >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> Subject: Re: WebClient-Core port to Pharo 1.1 final >>> Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 22:40:07 -0700 >>> From: Andreas Raab<andreas.r...@gmx.de> >>> To: Sven Van Caekenberghe<s...@beta9.be> >>> >>> Hi Sven, >>> >>> Sorry for the belated reply I think something is wrong with Thunderbird >>> 3's spam filter; it appears that messages with attachments get routinely >>> marked as spam or something. In any case a message on Squeak-dev just >>> got me to look for lost email and yours was among them :-) >>> >>> Do you know if these changes are still applicable? There have been >>> numerous changes in the meantime in WebClient and haven't been paying >>> much attention. >>> >>> Oh, and one more thing. When I went to the project page at >>> http://www.squeaksource.com/ADayAtTheBeach.html it claims that "Code >>> commited to this repository will be automatically under LGPLv2 license." >>> >>> Obviously, this is not true for WebClient; could I ask you to change the >>> declaration on your repository or move your versions to some other >>> repository? The way it is right now people might rightfully assume that >>> the WebClient versions in your repository are under LGPLv2 which is >>> simply incorrect. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> - Andreas >>> >>> On 8/12/2010 1:59 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: >>>> Hi Andreas, >>>> >>>> I made some changes to the latest WebClient-Core in order to run it on >>>> Pharo 1.1: >>>> >>>> Sven Van Caekenberghe uploaded a new version of WebClient-Core to project >>>> A Day At The Beach: >>>> http://www.squeaksource.com/ADayAtTheBeach/WebClient-Core-SvenVanCaekenberghe.63.mcz >>>> >>>> ==================== Summary ==================== >>>> >>>> Name: WebClient-Core-SvenVanCaekenberghe.63 >>>> Author: SvenVanCaekenberghe >>>> Time: 12 August 2010, 10:46:11 am >>>> UUID: 149d44b2-138b-4d63-a158-f587b2bd391d >>>> Ancestors: WebClient-Core-ar.62 >>>> >>>> added some more #asString's where needed to deal with the different >>>> semantics of #, in Squeak vs Pharo; removed usage of #and:and:and:and: >>>> with a composition of #and: in WebClient>>connect >>>> >>>> ================================================ >>>> >>>> I still have some tests that fail, but I can't find the problem: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 39 run, 34 passes, 0 expected failures, 0 failures, 5 errors, 0 unexpected >>>> passes >>>> Failures: >>>> >>>> Errors: >>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testMultipartFiles >>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testMultipartFiles2 >>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testServerError >>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testWebSockets >>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testWebSocketsFraming >>>> >>>> The #testServerError bothers me most. >>>> >>>> I am posting this to a Pharo list as well so that maybe others can help. >>>> Maybe I'll find the problems myself later on. >>>> >>>> Sven >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
