Hi all (and matthew we need your guidance/help)
We really want to get pharo 1.0 license clean. It would be bad that
1.0 is not.
But 1.0 should get out before summer.
Here is a collection of all the information I collected on the topic:
Here what matthew wrote
I've done the first step and done a full audit, using Yoshiki's
tools [1], of all the code
in Squeak 3.10.2, with the exception of four packages:
- Monticello
- SUnit, TestRunner, and SUnitImproved
- Universes
- Traits
I also applied all of yoshiki's etoys changes to 3.10.2. The
algorithm that Yoshiki seemed to follow when cleaning etoys is:
- If the method can be easily deleted, delete it
- Otherwise, use the historical image [1] to revert to the
latest version before the problematic author
- Fix any bugs this causes
I think we can use the same procedure. Perhaps Yoshiki will
comment.
So, to help with the relicense, grab the historical image[1],
check out the license audit [2], leave a note on mantis about
what you think you'll work on, and start rolling out change
sets. For your convenience, all of the license audits are
included both in the relicensing tools download and on mantis.
I'll try to keep both up to date as we progress with the
relicense
[1] The tools I've been using to do the relicense:
http://ftp.squeak.org/4.0alpha/squeak4.0-relicensingTools.zip
see also:
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2008-September/131586.html
http://www.squeaksource.com/MethodAuthorship.html
[2] The 4.0 relicense mantis issue:
http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=6989
The most up-to-date list of ok contributors is at
http://www.squeaksource.com/311/MethodAuthorship-kph.17.mcz
See the class-side methods in Authorship, category data
here is another email from matthew
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 11:10:12AM +0200, stephane ducasse wrote:
> I need your guidance for the MIT conversion effort of Pharo
> Do you have some cycles to help me and telling me how to proceed?
> I'm on holidays (so working remotely so I may allocate some time on
> that).
I can help you after school gets out in a week. I need to
do a quick count of how many lines of code need to be fixed in
squeak for submission to SFLC. I can do the same for Pharo. I
don't know how strenuous you want to be in your license
conversion.
The next 3 steps in the license conversion process are, in no
particular order:
- get a document from yoshiki documenting how etoys was
relicensed (and, by extension, cuis). The board will overview
it with the help of SFLC and determine if it is good enough.
- The board will publish a statement about what is and is not a
trivial-enough change to ignore.
- I will count up the lines of code to be converted, and
determine how many of them are trivial and non-trivial
You should chat with Randal Schwartz about what you need to
decide before you can start relicensing, and what you need to
document in case your relicense needs to be reviewed in the
future. Yoshiki and Juan did not do this and thus we have no
evidence yet that Yoshiki's relicense is strong enough.
I documented the priorities for squeak 4.0 in this email:
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2009-February/134083.html
You should probably figure out your priorities for the relicense
as well, so you know whose standards you need to meet.
Since that email was written, Randal has indeed heard back from
SFLC, but I haven't heard what they had to say yet.
--
Matthew Fulmer -- http://mtfulmer.wordpress.com/
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
