Hi Doru,

As a newcomer to the community, that situation was not clear for me from the blog post I linked, and I was referred there following the "News" tab on the spec.st site, in my first approach to learning it.

I think that a better explanation on why GPL is not a good fit in the Pharo ecosystem is important, because Hernán rationality behind his license chose is sound. I switched mine from GLP to MIT quickly to fit Pharo, but also without any major explanation. Something similar to what, the Smalltalk inspired project, Etoile has done [1], seems a position that explains why licensing choosing is confined, avoiding GPL/AGPL, and favouring LGPL, 3 clause BSD and MIT and common domain. This works better that "GPL is a plague", "only MIT", or "you can't make money with Free Software".

[1] http://etoileos.com/dev/licensing/

Maybe the place for linking such explanation is Smalltalkhub, because is the place where most people, specially newbies, are releasing/licensing their code. So offering choice, while advising which one works better for Pharo ecosystem integration seems more inviting a gives people an informed overview of the different possibilities to contribute back to the community.

So, Hernán, Steph and Doru, thanks for bringing this and teach me with the dialogue about it.

Cheers,

Offray


On 07/09/16 10:23, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi,

A note about Spec: What you are seeing in the announcement from August 2014, on 
the spec.st site is an announcement about a fork of Spec. The Spec from Pharo 
has always been MIT. Even the spec.st related repository on GitHub is now under 
MIT. See here:
https://github.com/spec-framework/spec

People are free to choose what they want with their projects, but in Pharo we 
will only consider code that is MIT. Please do not use the Spec as an example 
for dual licensing because it does not fit :). See above.

Cheers,
Doru


On Sep 7, 2016, at 10:07 AM, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas 
<offray.l...@mutabit.com> wrote:

Hi,


On 07/09/16 09:26, stepharo wrote:


Le 7/9/16 à 08:53, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas a écrit :
Hi,

Nice to see more diversity on license choice and projects in this community. We 
have the permissive MIT license by default in almost all Pharo and related 
project, but seeing GPL and AGPL in projects like Spec and now Territorial 
increase the sense of choice and engagement.

No sorry I cannot let you say such stupid statement.
Spec is not GPL.
Is not me who is doing the statement, is Benjamin Van Ryseghem, which was 
pretty involved in its development, since 2014:

http://spec.st/license/gpl/mit/2014/08/15/Spec_change_license.html
And GPL is really dangerous for image based system. It is a plague.

We do not want to force nice people (the one that could follow a license) to 
have to decide to use another language
just because they do not want to give their work for free.
Open source

Second you do not know what the mess it can be.

Yes, I don't know, but the Spec case shows that dual licensing is possible, so 
is not a binary decision.
In my case as a freelancer, having such licenses as base for the code of my works has 
helped me against big institutions that have aggressive practices regarding 
"Intelectual Property" and want everything for them all the time. Even in this 
community we have seen some interesting work that can not be contributed back to the 
community until the community makes something open by default (something related Java 
support comes to mind).

You do not know the story behind. And all Moose is BSD and Pharo ecosystem is 
MIT. So you can run away with them and get rich.
Now none of them force people to open source what they are doing
Or you can do the work twice, one close source and with legal bindings for not 
releasing anything and the second time open source in a community fashion.

Having a license that enforce reciprocity by default (GPL, AGPL) instead of "do what 
you want" ones (MIT, BSD) helps to keep the commons protected against predatory 
enclosure,

No it does not protect anything. It binds nice people to act nicely but does 
not do anything against assholes. So this is a lose / lose situation.

Well, in my context it has protected my against big institutions to close my 
work. Same for CC-By-SA (which enforces reciprocity and is behind most of the 
Pharo books). Licensing is a complex issue, it doesn't work the same in all the 
contexts and products. I don't know the specificity for image base development, 
but dual license is applicable here, as the Spec case shows.

even if you're a small freelancer and the ones really interested in such 
enclosure can still contact the author and pay the extra price that comes with 
not reciprocity to the wider community.

You dream. Such license will not protect anyone.
There are millions companies out there using GPL code and not opening their 
work.
Not anyone. See Cisco case [1]. So maybe there are millions companies 
misbehaving about the license implications, but there are also companies with 
millions behind that are in (forced?) compliance because the GPL protection is 
working. This has implications in projects like guifi.net, which is using Cisco 
GPLed routers to build one of the biggest p2p WiFi networks in the world 
(35,464 nodes covering 58,383 kilometers) [1a].

[1] 
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2009/05/cisco-settles-fsf-gpl-lawsuit-appoints-compliance-officer/
[1a] http://guifi.net/

Any code in GPL will not be considered for anything in our community.

Except for Spec and its dual license model.

My call is to consider differences. We should not have "The Pharo Way" (TM) or "No 
way!"... suddenly Markus talk about feedback loops comes to mind, particularly the slide on page 53, 
regarding "An open source smalltalk ignoring all community contributions"[2]. This is far for being 
the case in this community and we can keep that scenario at safe distance, if we show options. So, dual 
license is an option, git is an option, markdown is an option. Pharo as a place with options is one where 
Pharo can fulfill its vision for more people. Let's make these options visible and figure out the way the 
work better for a wider community.

[2] http://marcusdenker.de/talks/16ESUG/FeedbackLoopsAnnotated.pdf

Cheers,

Offray

--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.feenk.com

"Every successful trip needs a suitable vehicle."









Reply via email to