I was wondering if it would be possible to relicense the Sqrat under the MIT License, This way it matches the current license of Squirrel. I know that Squirrel changed it's license several years back from zlib-style to MIT.
Status: open Group: Created: Mon Jun 19, 2017 05:09 AM UTC by Kenney Phillis Last Updated: Mon Jun 19, 2017 05:41 AM UTC Owner: nobody
I was wondering if it would be possible to relicense the Sqrat under the
MIT License, This way it matches the current license of Squirrel. I know
that Squirrel changed it's license several years back from zlib-style to
MIT.
edit: Just noticed a missing word "Patches"... Either way, it does not change the fact that the Squirrel author is accepting third party changes to improve the Squirrel Language.
Last edit: Kenney Phillis 2017-06-21
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I sent an email to Toji to see if he agrees to have Sqrat's license changed.
It's surprising (and a bit suspect) to me that Fagiano would merge parts of Sqrat into Squirrel.
However, changing the license isn't a big deal as long as everyone agrees.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
So you know, I am wanting to use this code as a base for a more difficult project I want to attempt to get merged into the Squirrel Code base. I have a thread on the forum that will be up in the next couple of days after approval.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
edit: Fixed link to Take_cheeze's commit. edit 2: I think that The Unknown commit belongs to Tassos ( as per this bug report: https://sourceforge.net/p/scrat/sqrat/50/ )
Last edit: Kenney Phillis 2017-06-21
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
That unknown commit is by Tassos (https://sourceforge.net/p/scrat/code/merge-requests/1/)
I believe that because those contributions are so tiny, and the new license terms are extremely similar, it is safe to change the license without receiving permission from those contributors. Thoughts?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
You may think that is true, but this is Important to follow the three restrictions of the license... Just changing from ZLIB to MIT runs afoul with the third clause...
The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not
claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software
in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be
appreciated but is not required.
Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be
misrepresented as being the original software.
This notice may not be removed or altered from any source
distribution.
With this noted, It is important to at least contact the individual commiters to ensure that they agree with the relicensing.
edit: Added missing first clause so the auto-numbering will match.
Last edit: Kenney Phillis 2017-06-21
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I know small bug fixes and typo fixes are not considered to contain a copyright. I just wonder how big changes need to be before they are considered to have a copyright. The referenced commits do very straight-forward, easily-reproduced things. Anyways, I posted a link to this issue on the merge requests that spawned those commits. So, the contributors will be messaged if they have notifications turned on.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
You may say this, but there is major issues where it takes very few lines of code to be able to incure some sort of patent or copyright issue.
Example 1: Google was sued over 9 lines of Java code. Example 2: Doom 3 Open Source release required 4 new lines of code, and changing of two lines of code to avoid a software patent.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I went ahead and created a mirror of the SQrat code on github ( https://github.com/kphillisjr/Sqrat ). The only difference between this source tree and what is on Source forge so far is that I fixed the commit author where Tassos did not include a proper user name.
My code can have its license changed, but I don't own all the code.
Last edit: Wizzard 2017-06-19
same for me... although for practical purposes zlib-style license and BSD license and MIt license have little difference
I'm interested in why you would actually need a different non-restrictive license
I was wanting to attempt to merge portions of SQRat into the core squirrel source tree as a feature implemention/pull request.
it seems you should ask the author of Squirrel first if he is interested...
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Kenney Phillis kphillisjr@users.sf.net
wrote:
--
Andy Tai, atai@atai.org, Skype: licheng.tai, Line: andy_tai, WeChat:
andytai1010
Year 2017 民國106年
自動的精神力是信仰與覺悟
自動的行為力是勞動與技能
The author for Squirrel is accepting patches, so It's just a matter of getting things implemented in a fashion to allow for the project to be marged.
Squirrel Git repository: https://github.com/albertodemichelis/squirrel
Similarly, There is the old Squirrel Sourceforge page: https://sourceforge.net/projects/squirrel/?source=navbar
edit: Just noticed a missing word "Patches"... Either way, it does not change the fact that the Squirrel author is accepting third party changes to improve the Squirrel Language.
Last edit: Kenney Phillis 2017-06-21
I sent an email to Toji to see if he agrees to have Sqrat's license changed.
It's surprising (and a bit suspect) to me that Fagiano would merge parts of Sqrat into Squirrel.
However, changing the license isn't a big deal as long as everyone agrees.
So you know, I am wanting to use this code as a base for a more difficult project I want to attempt to get merged into the Squirrel Code base. I have a thread on the forum that will be up in the next couple of days after approval.
I originally chose the zlib style license to match Squirrel's license at the time. I actually prefer MIT, so I have no problem with the change.
(And for what it's worth, I'm kinda floored this project is still kicking. Thanks to everyone that's been keeping it up!)
Thank you for a quick Response, and There is only 5 commits left unaccounted for. These are the Following Commits...
Unknown: ( This one is the Hardest one to iron out, I hope it's From one of the top 3 that are already involved in this thread.)
https://sourceforge.net/p/scrat/code/ci/2a23a0e2ce8a40eb256bd1a25876235c49fa229e/
Take_Cheese:
https://sourceforge.net/p/scrat/code/ci/1092ec374ba9ccc780614d572a80b0e0be864c5e/
Fuami:
https://sourceforge.net/p/scrat/code/ci/fe4013a2bb51c1a22520ceb26e1180fced6f0385/
https://sourceforge.net/p/scrat/code/ci/d65e72219414fc23892e876015a5ca9eaf8dc9ae/
Tassos:
https://sourceforge.net/p/scrat/code/ci/726b7ac9b0d68d0bf1feb705f6ef8bef24cc1aac/
edit: Fixed link to Take_cheeze's commit.
edit 2: I think that The Unknown commit belongs to Tassos ( as per this bug report: https://sourceforge.net/p/scrat/sqrat/50/ )
Last edit: Kenney Phillis 2017-06-21
That unknown commit is by Tassos (https://sourceforge.net/p/scrat/code/merge-requests/1/)
I believe that because those contributions are so tiny, and the new license terms are extremely similar, it is safe to change the license without receiving permission from those contributors. Thoughts?
You may think that is true, but this is Important to follow the three restrictions of the license... Just changing from ZLIB to MIT runs afoul with the third clause...
With this noted, It is important to at least contact the individual commiters to ensure that they agree with the relicensing.
edit: Added missing first clause so the auto-numbering will match.
Last edit: Kenney Phillis 2017-06-21
I know small bug fixes and typo fixes are not considered to contain a copyright. I just wonder how big changes need to be before they are considered to have a copyright. The referenced commits do very straight-forward, easily-reproduced things. Anyways, I posted a link to this issue on the merge requests that spawned those commits. So, the contributors will be messaged if they have notifications turned on.
You may say this, but there is major issues where it takes very few lines of code to be able to incure some sort of patent or copyright issue.
Example 1: Google was sued over 9 lines of Java code.
Example 2: Doom 3 Open Source release required 4 new lines of code, and changing of two lines of code to avoid a software patent.
I sent out some messages anyways, despite thinking it's fine to change as is
takecheeze has agreed https://sourceforge.net/p/scrat/code/merge-requests/3/
I went ahead and created a mirror of the SQrat code on github ( https://github.com/kphillisjr/Sqrat ). The only difference between this source tree and what is on Source forge so far is that I fixed the commit author where Tassos did not include a proper user name.
Edit: The Squirrel language change thread I created is now live, and you can find details on this here:
http://forum.squirrel-lang.org/mainsite/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=5104
Last edit: Kenney Phillis 2017-06-23