Hi Hernan, Thanks for your balanced response. Licensing discussion can be boring but also crucial, hence the sometimes religious views on it. Like a lot of things, from a distance it seems easy - but the devil is in the details. Consider anyway that "Territorial" may otherwise have been a single blip in your first [ANN] post, but its now had more exposure. I hope you don't mind I follow up with one more post that has been sitting almost complete in Drafts folder a few days, after researching some interesting points.
cheers -ben On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Hernán Morales Durand <hernan.mora...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I consider GNU AGPL v3 a fair license choice which protects somehow authors. > After some talks with friends today, I began to consider it useless for a > niche community like Smalltalk *and* solo projects. I then read all your > mails, many posts in other communities, and finally asked for advices. > Conclusion: The ideal license option for me was not yet invented. > > Now about parasite behavior and easy living for freeloaders. > > - I doubt Smalltalkers are in position for doing anything valuable against > parasites. GPL scares a niche community. All of us having MIT code published > can be stealed and we have no legal options to defend our work/authorship. > That should be addressed one day. > > - However, I would like one day to read people releasing software under > whatever license they want and not to be pointed them. That's a matter of > freedom. I feel we are far away from there. > > - I hope we can talk about interesting Territorial features, what do you > need, what could be modeled better, etc. Licensing is boring, really. > > I re-licensed Territorial to MIT for the nice Pharo people, for the nice > Smalltalkers, people who helped me here in mailing lists, or sending > supportive private messages, and for cool users with nice intentions. > > Hernán > > PS: Updated User Manual: http://bit.ly/2c4RrCJ > > >
