Le 7/9/16 à 10:49, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas a écrit :
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.
this has been debated during so many years that we do not want to do it
anymore.
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/
We should do that. I added a short probably bad text under
http://pharo.org/contribute
if someone what to enhance it, feel free.
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."
