Hi, We do not accept GPL for Pharo because is viral: it enforces GPL to “derivative work”, and in OO, where you basically refine classes, is hard to see when your work is a separated thing and when is “a derivate” (one could say that in smalltalk, everything you do is a derivate… a nightmare that has made possible Cincom business models).
Point. Now, you are free to license your code under the license you prefer (and please, note that you can do that because WE decided to license Pharo as MIT :)… but that restricts your program in two ways: 1) is not eligible for integration into Pharo. Is not even eligible for “look at it and pick ideas”, because is a license violation. 2) many people will run away from even look at that code, for same reasons we will not look at it (we do not want to infringe license terms… so we are basically out of any movement that can happen there). so that :) I my self have code that is not under any copyleft license (custom projects for particular clients), but that didn’t avoid me to release Voyage and all the frameworks I developed while doing custom apps as MIT. Why? because I wanted a community looking at it. cheers, Esteban > On 07 Sep 2016, at 11:03, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.al...@gmail.com> wrote: > > GPL is a license that courts have already recognized in many cases. > > Not that they have much of a choice > > A license is basically a contract and contracts are legally binding as long > as acceptance can be proved for both sides. > > As a lawyer I would not advise any client to try to challenge GPL on two > grounds: > > a) Infringement of contract makes you liable to compensation and gives the > legal right to the other party to have a court decisions that forbids you to > keep selling / distributing your software. If you violate the court decision > that entitles the opposing party for further litigation and compensation. In > some cases comes with the gift of prison time depending on national law > > b) Its also an infringement on copyright which is even more litigation and > much more compensations > > Also from a practical point of view GPL is the only license that can really > protect open source software on the premise when you have a permitting > license like MIT what you do is open the door to countless of companies that > want to do business with you for selling their closed source but also > countless of threats. A company could easily for example take Pharo close > source it and heavily upgrade , as a result many Pharo users could migrate to > this heavily improved new close source Pharo essentially killing or shrinking > substantially the MIT Pharo. This is actually what Pharo did for Squeak with > the big difference that Pharo is still open source. > > Of course MIT license is what most companies would prefer for using your code > , though LGPL is also a favored choice. You can also have modified GPL > license that allows its usage on closed source system which is basically what > LGPL is , but with the difference you can put any term you want in it. Most > popular languages come with their own license anyway. > > If what you claimed was true even slightly that would mean that the law would > not protect GPL, which in extension would mean no protection for licenses > which in extension would mean no protection for contracts which as you can > imagine is just not practical and would through the entire global commerce > into a chaos, legal or non legal. > > In case of Europe things are better on the legal protection front because EU > law has done an excellent job at harmonizing national legislation and > protecting basic legal rights. > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 10:27 AM stepharo <steph...@free.fr > <mailto:steph...@free.fr>> 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. 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. > >> >> 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 > >> 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. > >> 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. > Any code in GPL will not be considered for anything in our community. > > > >> >> Thanks Hernán, >> >> Offray >> >> On 07/09/16 06:48, p...@highoctane.be <mailto:p...@highoctane.be> wrote: >>> In Tiki, there has been such discussions as well. >>> >>> https://tiki.org/License <https://tiki.org/License> >>> >>> But yeah, MIT license is the best thing :-) >>> >>> Phil >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Hernán Morales Durand >>> <hernan.mora...@gmail.com <mailto:hernan.mora...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> I thought for a while about the license. >>> >>> Fixing the ASP loophole means trying to escape from companies using a trick >>> to avoid returning changes to the code back to the community[1]. I agree >>> with such position. GNU AGPL is free, copyleft, approved by OSI, FSF, and >>> used by successful projects : MongoDB, SugarCRM, OTRS, etc. If anyone want >>> to discuss collaboration or re-licensing, for example to monetize library >>> services, feel free to contact me privately. >>> >>> Hernán >>> >>> [1] http://www.fabcapo.com/2008/02/we-have-submitted-agpl-to-osi.html >>> <http://www.fabcapo.com/2008/02/we-have-submitted-agpl-to-osi.html> >>> >>> >>> 2016-09-06 18:03 GMT-03:00 Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com >>> <mailto:tu...@tudorgirba.com>>: >>> Hi Hernán, >>> >>> I believe Stef was asking about the choice of picking a viral license vs >>> the permissive MIT one that we use in code that gets into Pharo (and >>> several other larger related projects). >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Doru >>> >>> >>> > On Sep 6, 2016, at 10:28 PM, Hernán Morales Durand >>> > <hernan.mora...@gmail.com <mailto:hernan.mora...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> > >>> > Hi Stef, >>> > >>> > I used the License Differentiator tool at >>> > http://oss-watch.ac.uk/apps/licdiff/ >>> > <http://oss-watch.ac.uk/apps/licdiff/> >>> > >>> > I like it because it fixes the 'ASP (application service provider) >>> > loophole' or 'privacy loophole' problem (See Choice Six in the tool) >>> > >>> > Hernán >>> > >>> > >>> > 2016-09-06 16:47 GMT-03:00 stepharo <steph...@free.fr >>> > <mailto:steph...@free.fr>>: >>> > Hi hernan >>> > >>> > why do you picked AGPL? We try to protect our community against license >>> > hell. >>> > Stef >>> > Le 6/9/16 à 11:40, Hernán Morales Durand a écrit : >>> >> >>> >> Hi Stephan, >>> >> >>> >> 2016-09-06 2:52 GMT-03:00 Stephan Eggermont <step...@stack.nl >>> >> <mailto:step...@stack.nl>>: >>> >> On 06/09/16 06:24, Hernán Morales Durand wrote: >>> >> >>> >> I am happy to announce the release of Territorial, a new Smalltalk >>> >> library for Geographical Information Retrieval in geopolitical objects. >>> >> >>> >> Nice. Please tell us about your license choice >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> License of the library is AGPL v3 (it is in the Notes and disclaimers of >>> >> the manual) >>> >> License of the documentation is CC BY-SA 3.0 >>> >> >>> >> Cheers, >>> >> >>> >> Hernán >>> >> >>> >> Stephan >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> >>> -- >>> www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com/> >>> www.feenk.com <http://www.feenk.com/> >>> >>> "If you can't say why something is relevant, >>> it probably isn't." >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
