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
Pffff. Ben did it just because he wanted to impact us. Now he cannot
change the license like that because he was paid during the development
of Spec by our team and lawyers explained to him nicely that you cannot
change the license of a software system if all the contributors do not
agree and I did not (because a large part of Spec are my ideas).
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.
No again you do not know the truth on that story
There is not dual licensing. Period.
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.
This is not our way of doing things.
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.
No it does not :)
GPL is a viral license that was not designed with image (shared memory
of programs) in mind.
So this is really simple: if you use GPL then do not imagine one instant
that one sensible guy (and nice) will load your code in his image.
Or he is fool :)
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/
I do not care! We are not in the world of laywers mess and we do not
want to enter it.
Simple. You can argue I do not care. I want to work and get stuff done.
Any code in GPL will not be considered for anything in our community.
Except for Spec and its dual license model.
No again.
My call is to consider differences.
No in Pharo there is MIT. Period. You do what you want but do not cry if
nobody look at your code.
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.
It is amazing how you like talking.
[2] http://marcusdenker.de/talks/16ESUG/FeedbackLoopsAnnotated.pdf
Cheers,
Offray
