No it was before. https://github.com/spec-framework/spec/pull/14 May 2 On 05 Sep 2014, at 10:43, Christophe Demarey <Christophe.Demarey@inria.fr> wrote:

Le 5 sept. 2014 à 09:38, Yuriy Tymchuk a écrit :

...

I’ve made fixes long time ago before Ben left. + my change is in Pharo image.

Is this enough?

I think so. All code contributed to Pharo via Fogbugz is licensed under MIT. Problems may come if you did a pull request on the spec git repo after the re-licensing.

Well I can tell you as a lawyer that GPL is a legal nightmare. I am not against anyone using it as a license but legally is far from clear and there is no guarantees under which circumstances is enforceable. Also copyright is tricky, usually someone contributes based on existing code, so code is not independent and is difficult not to have conflict of interests and conflict of copyrights. And on top of that good luck explaining that to a judge, especially one without a good experience in computer law cases. Also license and copyright is two different things unless the license is explicit in surrendering any copyright . The later is also the safest way to do this legal wise, no copyright means less legal trouble. I also speak from experience I have a case of copyright infringement for software between an individual and a company ( I represent the company) the case has been in courts for over a decade now and the courts have not even dealt with the technical side of who actually wrote the code and still are on the stage of deciding what legal type the work was. So yes be careful and always consult a lawyer if you are company and an individual if you intend making money with the code. On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Ben Coman <btc@openinworld.com> wrote:

Now I'm glad that I just read [1] which says "Today (15 Aug 2014), Spec is changing its license. Until today, Spec was released under the MIT license." I was just about to again rant about the apparent silent relicensing of Spec on 6 Jan 2014 [2] to the CCPL-A-NC-SA [3] (Creative Commons Public License Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike). So I'll optimistically consider that was just poorly thought out rather than a cunning plan.

Yet this still presents some complication. The CPPL was the documented license of the Spec git repository from 6 Jan 2014 to 16 Aug 2014 [4]. When BenVR submitted this CPPL licensed code into Pharo, he implicitly relicensed "his" parts as MIT. However he is unable to similarly relicense the code of a third party contributor like Yuriy. Only Yuriy can do that. Now even though Yuriy's code in external Spec repository might be encumbered by the CPPL, it is still "his" code. He retains the copyright for it in all distributions. He can even relicense his code that portion of it at any time, even if upon distribution it would pick up the CPPL again. However if all contributors [5] similarly agree that their Spec contributions are MIT licensed in Pharo, then we should be in the clear. Could I ask the board follow up directly with those contributors [5] (off list) to confirm their Spec contributions current in Pharo to date are MIT licensed. This might be making a mountain out of a mole hill, but that is what keeps the wolves at bay.

[1] http://spec.st/license/gpl/mit/2014/08/15/Spec_change_license.html [2] https://github.com/spec-framework/spec/blob/8d8e85934188be486c9e91e5bff44670... [3] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/legalcode [4] https://github.com/bencoman/spec/commit/dc7b5ed7bfb129e29c131e9f97b1333f81c4... [5] https://github.com/bencoman/spec/graphs/contributors

Uko

On 04 Sep 2014, at 11:39, Christophe Demarey <Christophe.Demarey@inria.fr> wrote:

Yes, you should add a slice in the Pharo inbox with your contribution but ... it depends under which license you first published your contribution. If it was MIT, it is fine (and spec is out of law). If it was the double licensing, we will not be able to integrate it into Pharo. We should re-implement this functionality. I know these things are boring but we should take care to avoid potential problems in the future.

I don't think it matters which license Yuriy first published under. The copyright of _his_ code remains _his_ to relicense whenever he likes. The CCPL and GPL-like licenses are only applied to "distribution" of modifications _with_ the original code. The GPL does not "apply" to modifications that are not "distributed". That is, the GPL does not force you to release source for modifications that you don't "distribute" to others. Think of it like this. As Uko was modifying Spec on his machine, his modifications were unencumbered by the CCPL. Yuriy then submitted/distributed a "copy" of his modifications to the github Spec repository, so the CPPL applies to _that_ "copy". Yuriy's original modifications on his machine remain unencumbered. He is free to distribute them under another license. Indeed, I believe he can even relicense his CCPL encumbered "copy" in the external Spec repository, but that is ineffective unless everyone else does the same.

Yuriy Tymchuk wrote:

No it was before. https://github.com/spec-framework/spec/pull/14

May 2

On 05 Sep 2014, at 10:43, Christophe Demarey <Christophe.Demarey@inria.fr> <Christophe.Demarey@inria.fr> wrote:

Le 5 sept. 2014 à 09:38, Yuriy Tymchuk a écrit :

I’ve made fixes long time ago before BenVR left. + my change is in Pharo image.

Is this enough?

Did your change end up in Pharo via the CCPL licensed external Spec repository on github? Or did you submit it to the MIT licensed PharoInbox?

I think so. All code contributed to Pharo via Fogbugz is licensed under MIT. Problems may come if you did a pull request on the spec git repo after the re-licensing.

All contributions to the CPPL licensed external Spec repository after Jan 2014 are potentially problematic. In practice, a statement from Yuriy that confirms his Spec contributions are MIT licensed in Pharo is probably sufficient.

cheers -ben