Personally I dont mind you being rude to me, I am a lawyer , by profession I am thick skinned. Busy ? being there done that. And we all snap from time to time and I agree doing is usually more than important that talking , but , there is always a BUT.
In any case I dont want to drag the issue its just I care for Pharo maybe not much as you do since I have not invested as much as you have but I do think talking is also important it helps people get more confident in being part of a community , this in term can lead to motivation to being active contributors. When I joined Pharo community I got a lot of encouragement from people here for my efforts , it may be talk, but emotionally is very important to know that people appreciate your work and respect you as a person. A small advise from a person that happens to see what having too many responsibilities can do to a person, take care yourself because the effects of overworking are not immediate , it will get much worse down the road unless you make yourself a priority. On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:46 PM stepharo <steph...@free.fr> wrote: > About my tone may I ask a question? Yes sometimes I feel irritated. I'm > human and I feel irritated. > > May be you know the trick that some smart manager use to control the > length of meetings... > > I experienced in our team in the past meetings with 18 people and one guy > was always talking a lot more than others. And I was always asking myself: > does it have conscience that each minute he is taking is in fact 18 min > because we could all spend 1 min doing something else. > > After that I heard about team that have strange clock where the clock is > multiplying by the amount of participants. > > So when I participate to meetings I always think about what is the value > that I bring to other time. > > Now we are all busy, you see some people in our team and outside told me > that they do not have the time to follow Pharo mailing-lists because there > are too many emails. And we all lose because the insights of such people > could be really great. > > So some alternatives: > > - do not care do not read the pharo mailing-list, I would not feel > happy with such solution. > > - be forced to react when something wrong is said because this is > important for everybody. And yes sometimes I'm irritated because I feel > forced to say something.I have the impression that not saying anything is a > kind of luxury that I do not have. > > - have a closed contributors only mailing-list (not good does not feel > nice). > > > This license point is key and this is why I reacted. And I reacted that > way because I CARE about our system and I CARE about our communitee. > > Out there, there is Java, Lua, Python, Ruby, Swift, Objective-C and many > more. So we should pay attention to our ecosystem and the license > > is an integral part of it. > > So sorry to be rude but I'm ***REALLY*** busy. Much more than you can > imagine. Even more. And I feel responsible. > > > Stef > > > > Le 7/9/16 à 14:40, Dimitris Chloupis a écrit : > > Ironically enough "this is our way , take it or leave it" would not work > for Pharo because its smalltalk and basically smalltalk by architecture > allow you to deeply modify the system from the get go. > > This make Pharo technically impossible to control from a dictator and > committee point of view like lets say Python or Linux. CPython is a single > implementation , but with pharo every pharo app is essentially a new pharo > implementation. The moment you modify or extend the pharo image you make a > new pharo implementation. > > I don't like the tone Stef is expressing , he is quite rude and definitely > does not represent the tone of the community which far more open to > dialogue but he is correct , GPL would never have worked for Pharo. > Actually I dont think I have seen a language that is fairly popular under a > GPL license. > > There is of course software under GPL which is sucessful commercially, > Blender is an example, but GPL does not cover 3d assets, music and sound. > In that case you use another kind of license like creative commons or > heavily modify GPL to extend beyond code. So it was definitely not GPL that > made Blender popular, actually it caused a problem with game developers > because games using the BGE (Blender Game Engine) were at first considered > data because the code was packaged inside the blend file which had a binary > format so that meant it was not covered by GPL because it considered the > whole game code just data (there is a separate executable for loading the > game code) but then Blender decided to change this also to GPL with > extending its license and that pretty much killed commercial games made > with Blender. > > So technically you could get away with GPLing Pharo because you could > argue that Pharo image is merely data that the VM loads and not real source > code, which is kinda correct but it would be messy and the legal > interpretation very confusing and uncertain ( leaves a lot of room for > legal interpretation ) . As a company you cannot risk this , especially > while you expect to make big profit. > > As stef said GPL is like a virus, it spread anywhere it touches. Even if > all you do is add a tiny bit of GPL code inside the Pharo image would turn > the entire Pharo implementation including the VM into GPL and because Pharo > tries to approach as many companies as possible as most other languages do > , because money helps improve the popularity and the quality of the code, > MIT is definitely the way to do. > > So its more a "have to" than a "must to". > > Also double license or not its kinda pointless, the moment something > becomes MIT you can be rest assured that people will pick MIT over GPL. > This because you can turn MIT to GPL but you cannot turn GPL to MIT. So > even if you want your project GPLed , MIT is still more than enough and of > course most people will pick MIT for commercial apps so they don't need to > open source their code. > > So no, it does not matter that Spec is double licensed , or if it is legal > that is double licensed , since its active implementation is MIT this all > you need to know. > > So for Pharo and pretty much almost all other programming languages out > there who aspire to be used by as many people as possible and play an > active role in the software market MIT like license is a mandatory choice. > The irony of people not wanting to open source their code but wanting to > use open source code. Its this type of thinking that justifies the > existence of GPL. > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 2:59 PM Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas < > offray.l...@mutabit.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> >> On 07/09/16 13:39, stepharo wrote: >> > >> >> 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. >> > >> >> Yes. I like. Is the way to know unwritten history. Not all the people in >> the community know the details as you do, so talking is the way of going >> out of misconceptions, like mine about dual license or state positions, >> like why I don't use Pillar. The "it has been discussed, this is our >> way, take or leave it" doesn't help in understanding way. So yes, I'm >> all about encouraging dialog/talk if it helps to understand. >> >> Bye, >> >> Offray >> >> >
