I think your concern is admirable. Businesses are sometimes shy of open source (more the GPL than MIT) for similar concerns. Providing tools to manage those concerns "might" enhance respectability in the eyes of those potential business users, but there are probably more important things for the limited resources to focus on at the moment. Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
Ben,
Constraints would be useful. Again, I don't dare botch this - it's silly but, there is "force of law" and all that.
Failing a screening system like you describe, I would literally settle for an ability to make a repository and then just FTP specific files that I have saved locally and browsed for content. I'd be less scared if I hadn't been surprised in the past...
I guess a possible workflow for a poor-man's-version would be to hack the <Save> button in Monticello Browser so that it only works with local directory repositories (or less harshly, issues a warning for non-local repositories). Then uploading to a remote repository is a two step process requiring manual use the <Copy> button in the Repository Browser. To each pertinent class/method add "License: NDA1" to the comment. Hack the <Copy> button in the Repository Browser to scan the selected mcz for the "License" string before presenting the list of remote repositories. Alternatively, further hack the Save process to scan the newly created mcz for a "License" taint and rename it to reflect that (although that may have unintended consequence on tracking ancestors).
I probably create some of my own troubles by my naming conventions, which are my attempt at making it easy to catch my code with a wide net so I don't lose work. That same wide net worked against me with net repositories.
Bill
________________________________________ From: pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr [pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr] on behalf of Ben Coman [btc@openInWorld.com] Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 8:05 AM To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Alternative to MC for upload?
Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
Hello all,
I have a fair amount of code that I can't/don't dare release because it involves intellectual property that I do not own, and access under non-disclosure agreements (some of which are silly, but need to be respected regardless). None of that code it is relevant to you (unless you do heart surgery at home), but I need to keep it separate from things like GSL, PLplot, FFI tweaks, etc., that should interest the community.
In the past, I've saved to http repositories and been surprised at things (fortunately, nothing toxic) that were released w/o my intent. Squeak Source long since lost the code in question, but it put a fear of MC in me.
Is there a way to use gofer or something else to send specific .mcz files that I want to make available? Some other tool?
Bill
I feel I've misread your question - but my first thought is that different packages can be stored in different Repository Types. So the heart surgery stuff would be saved to only local "directory" repositories while the more general stuff would be saved to the public "http" repositories.
More generally, an interesting feature would be being able to tag both packages and repositories with a license type (eg MIT, MyCommericalLicense, OtherCompanyNDA) and the system constrain you to saving packages in compatible repositories. As an extension, some ideas for tool support might be: + being able to strip "all non-MIT" code out of an image + using a different background colour when editing non-MIT code
cheers, ben