Hi. I noticed at http://squeak.org/Documentation/ , the Squeak by Example link is to http://www.iam.unibe.ch/%7Escg/SBE/ . However, the book references http://SqueakByExample.org which seems like a nicer URL to use. Thanks for all your work on Squeak web site! Lewis
Corrected. Thank you Lewis for reporting it! Janko J. Lewis Muir wrote: > Hi. > > I noticed at > > http://squeak.org/Documentation/ > > , the Squeak by Example link is to > > http://www.iam.unibe.ch/%7Escg/SBE/ > > . However, the book references > > http://SqueakByExample.org > > which seems like a nicer URL to use. > > Thanks for all your work on Squeak web site! > > Lewis
There is ongoing discussion about including etoys in debian, fedora, and ubuntu. Several people have looked at http://squeak.org/SqueakLicense/ and are confused, as that license is not the MIT/Apache license that we are advertising etoys to be available under. For the latest discussion, see the emails with the subject "Sugar in Edubuntu": http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2008-November/thread.html I would like to add the following notice to the top of the page: Notice regarding Etoys Etoys 4, a product derived from Squeak and distributed with Sugar<http://sugarlabs.org> and the One Laptop Per Child<http://laptop.org>, is no longer distributed under the license listed on this page. Its licensing terms are described at Viewpoints Research Institute<http://www.vpri.org/vp_wiki>, the copyright holder for Squeak and Etoys -- -- Matthew Fulmer -- http://mtfulmer.wordpress.com/
I strongly disagree and believe this would further confuse the issue. www.squeak.org and ftp.squeak.org represent the project that develops and distributes Squeak, but not Squeak Etoys. Any license information should be closely connected to the distribution point for a piece of software and vice versa. We do not distribute Squeak Etoys, why should we be maintaining licensing information for that piece of software? Ken On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 16:51 -0700, Matthew Fulmer wrote: > There is ongoing discussion about including etoys in debian, > fedora, and ubuntu. Several people have looked at > > http://squeak.org/SqueakLicense/ > > and are confused, as that license is not the MIT/Apache license > that we are advertising etoys to be available under. For the > latest discussion, see the emails with the subject "Sugar in > Edubuntu": > > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2008-November/thread.html > > I would like to add the following notice to the top of the page: > > > Notice regarding Etoys > > Etoys 4, a product derived from Squeak and distributed > with Sugar<http://sugarlabs.org> and the One Laptop Per > Child<http://laptop.org>, is no longer distributed under the(Continue reading)
Further regarding the current SqueakLicense page: In my opinion the content on this page should be replaced with the original 'Squeak License' since I believe there are links to this page expecting the actual Squeak License (the license by that name, not the license for a given version of Squeak). Another page should be created that as succinctly as possible explains the current license status and secondarily the history and links as appropriate to seperate pages (either internally or externally) for each license. A link could be put prominently on the SqueakLicense page pointing to this new page if the reader is looking for overall licensing information. And any existing links on the site that mean to refer to license status and not explicitly the 'Squeak License' should be changed to point to the new page. Ken On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 18:16 -0600, Ken Causey wrote: > I strongly disagree and believe this would further confuse the issue. > www.squeak.org and ftp.squeak.org represent the project that develops > and distributes Squeak, but not Squeak Etoys. Any license information > should be closely connected to the distribution point for a piece of > software and vice versa. We do not distribute Squeak Etoys, why should > we be maintaining licensing information for that piece of software? > > Ken > > On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 16:51 -0700, Matthew Fulmer wrote: > > There is ongoing discussion about including etoys in debian,(Continue reading)
I'm just checking Google stats and license page has currently the highest pagerank, therefore we really need to take care about its content. About mentioning EToys license , isn't EToys a part of standard Squeak distribution? Or at least some code of it. If so, we need to at least mention the license of EToys and provide a link to its website. From quick look at the license page and from history I'd conclude that it is under Apache license but further down the Apple license is states. But it is titled as Official Squeak license. Well, this is really confusing and need to be corrected ASAP. We need a word from a Leadership, from Craig I suppose, about changing the exact license on that page? Janko Ken Causey wrote: > Further regarding the current SqueakLicense page: > > In my opinion the content on this page should be replaced with the > original 'Squeak License' since I believe there are links to this page > expecting the actual Squeak License (the license by that name, not the > license for a given version of Squeak). > > Another page should be created that as succinctly as possible explains > the current license status and secondarily the history and links as > appropriate to seperate pages (either internally or externally) for each > license. A link could be put prominently on the SqueakLicense page > pointing to this new page if the reader is looking for overall licensing(Continue reading)
On Sat, 2008-11-08 at 16:55 +0100, Janko Mivšek wrote: > I'm just checking Google stats and license page has currently the > highest pagerank, therefore we really need to take care about its content. > > About mentioning EToys license , isn't EToys a part of standard Squeak > distribution? Or at least some code of it. If so, we need to at least > mention the license of EToys and provide a link to its website. No, the problem here is one shared by many not familiar with Squeak in depth. We are refering to two closely related but separate things by the name 'eToys'. One is a collection of classes and collateral data that is, in some form, distributed as part of the current Squeak core releases. The second, and the one relevant here, is a distribution of Squeak with modifications and additions to the eToys software and setup for educational purposes. This is distributed via squeakland.org and perhaps other locations. > > From quick look at the license page and from history I'd conclude that > it is under Apache license but further down the Apple license is states. > But it is titled as Official Squeak license. Well, this is really > confusing and need to be corrected ASAP. > > We need a word from a Leadership, from Craig I suppose, about changing > the exact license on that page? > > Janko > > Ken Causey wrote: > > Further regarding the current SqueakLicense page:(Continue reading)
At Fri, 7 Nov 2008 16:51:01 -0700, Matthew Fulmer wrote: > > There is ongoing discussion about including etoys in debian, > fedora, and ubuntu. Several people have looked at > > http://squeak.org/SqueakLicense/ > > and are confused, as that license is not the MIT/Apache license > that we are advertising etoys to be available under. For the > latest discussion, see the emails with the subject "Sugar in > Edubuntu": > > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2008-November/thread.html > > I would like to add the following notice to the top of the page: > > > Notice regarding Etoys > > Etoys 4, a product derived from Squeak and distributed > with Sugar<http://sugarlabs.org> and the One Laptop Per > Child<http://laptop.org>, is no longer distributed under the > license listed on this page. Its licensing terms are described > at Viewpoints Research Institute<http://www.vpri.org/vp_wiki>, > the copyright holder for Squeak and Etoys That would be helpful. Thank you for the suggestion! Janko, could you do that?(Continue reading)
On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 04:14:01PM -0800, Yoshiki Ohshima wrote: > At Fri, 7 Nov 2008 16:51:01 -0700, > Matthew Fulmer wrote: > > > > There is ongoing discussion about including etoys in debian, > > fedora, and ubuntu. Several people have looked at > > > > http://squeak.org/SqueakLicense/ > > > > and are confused, as that license is not the MIT/Apache license > > that we are advertising etoys to be available under. For the > > latest discussion, see the emails with the subject "Sugar in > > Edubuntu": > > > > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2008-November/thread.html > > > > I would like to add the following notice to the top of the page: > > > > > > Notice regarding Etoys > > > > Etoys 4, a product derived from Squeak and distributed > > with Sugar<http://sugarlabs.org> and the One Laptop Per > > Child<http://laptop.org>, is no longer distributed under the > > license listed on this page. Its licensing terms are described > > at Viewpoints Research Institute<http://www.vpri.org/vp_wiki>, > > the copyright holder for Squeak and Etoys > > That would be helpful. Thank you for the suggestion! >(Continue reading)
This line makes the rest of the text on the page unclear: "Etoys 4 is no longer distributed under the license listed on this page. Its licensing terms are described at Viewpoints Research Institute, who holds the copyright for Squeak and Etoys" It states that VPRI holds the copyright to Squeak and you must go to VPRI to view the Squeak licensing terms. But, right after this sentence is work on the change to Apache 2.0 and the current licensing terms for Squeak. Confusing to me. Perhaps a clarifying sentence regarding the licensing terms, and the legal difference between squeak and etoys could immediately follow this sentence so it's clear. It seems to say that etoys and squeak are bundled together. (they may be together for this particular release, but there are versions of squeak that have licensing terms different from etoys) ---- Also, the following is a bit unclear even though it's in the section of "Upcoming License Change": "In 2006, VPRI began to collect "Distribution Agreements" for all contributors to Squeak since V1.1 up to V3.8, asking them to relicense their contributions, which were originally licensed under SqL, to the MIT license. This was a great effort on behalf of many and VPRI has 100s of signed documents agreeing to this." It sounds like the work is done. Perhaps changing "was" to "is": "This is an ongoing effort on behalf of many authors and VPRI has(Continue reading)
RSS Feed3 | |
|---|---|
11 | |
17 | |
47 | |
2 | |
5 | |
1 | |
1 | |
1 | |
1 | |
2 | |
2 | |
6 | |
6 | |
4 | |
2 | |
3 | |
1 | |
2 | |
11 | |
4 | |
3 | |
1 | |
4 | |
34 | |
3 | |
1 | |
5 | |
10 | |
2 | |
2 | |
2 | |
25 | |
66 | |
16 | |
13 | |
31 | |
10 | |
24 | |
36 | |
57 | |
7 | |
5 | |
25 | |
23 | |
21 | |
20 | |
8 | |
16 | |
25 | |
25 | |
19 | |
13 | |
49 | |
120 | |
18 | |
22 | |
71 | |
10 | |
6 | |
13 | |
9 | |
21 | |
23 | |
25 | |
59 | |
61 | |
71 | |
93 |
