Dory, can your mail be put on the Pharo web page, the contributions part? It seems that with a bit of polishing it would fit in well there, and this way future discussions can point to that page.
-- Does this mail seem too brief? Sorry for that, I don’t mean to be rude! Please see http://emailcharter.org . Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry PLEIAD and RyCh labs - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile > On Sep 8, 2016, at 06:40, Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com> wrote: > > Hi Offray, > > I am sorry you feel down. > > The wording of Stef did appear strong. However, please keep in mind that > email is a terrible medium for expressing and transmitting feelings. I would > kindly ask you to reconsider the emails and focus on the content and you will > see that the wording was not about the external project but about the > decisions that relate to the licensing of Pharo itself. As Esteban and I > clarified, Pharo is MIT and will remain MIT. There is a long history of why > this is so and a huge amount of effort to make it clean MIT. To keep it clean > we have to be aware of the implications of another kind of a license, and our > clarifications were about how we, those that work on the main Pharo code, > will not touch a GPL code and that this might have a counter productive > impact on the originator of the code in question (due to a lack of engagement > from other people). > > Please also keep in mind that we do not want to prevent people from choosing > their own licenses. The decision of the license belongs exclusively to the > creators of the code. We are only looking for the interests of the core of > Pharo to make sure that you will continue to have whatever options you choose > on top of it. And you will always be free to choose what you want for your > projects. > > Just a note about other licenses you mentioned: in the context of Pharo, LGPL > has the same effect as GPL given that there is no concept of binary > reusability in our system. So, for that purpose, we also do not touch LGPL. > > A final point: when someone says that "we decided something a long time ago”, > it is easy to take it as a “this is it, just take it”, but that would be a > bit unfair. A more fair alternative is to understand that time is scarce and > sometimes we just do not have the available energy to provide all > clarifications on demand right at that point. > > Please let’s focus on building things together, even if there are > misunderstandings or seaming differences in opinion. We need everyone’s > energy. > > Cheers, > Doru > > >> On Sep 8, 2016, at 9:53 AM, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas >> <offray.l...@mutabit.com> wrote: >> >> Nice to know something good came out after taking all the heat. In my case I >> learn about licensing with the reasons behind and not "just take it!"... >> My sources of information, the main spec.st site, made my mistake about dual >> license a valid misinterpretation and even the idea that there are other >> non-viral licenses: LGPL, 3 clause BSD, public domain that can integrated in >> a MIT licensed project, with the rationale behind [1], seems a good thing to >> make explicit >> [1] http://etoileos.com/dev/licensing/ >> Kind of down though, after seeing how a community leader can go after other >> people who don't share his views/knowledge and is just trying to contribute, >> understand and be part of the community. Today would be a slow day for me in >> Smalltak... maybe is time to take a walk a leave it for a time. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Offray >> >> On 08/09/16 06:00, Hernán Morales Durand 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 >>> >>> >>> >> > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > www.feenk.com > > "Next time you see your life passing by, say 'hi' and get to know her." > > > > > >
