> someone to get a reasonably definitive answer on this question? you would get that only from a copyright layer... and definitive answer only from a judge ;)
I don't see how Pharo bootstrap changes anything. If you mean that you can now add library after bootstrap... well you can do that now already with any previous Pharo version. GPL is viral infection, so if you decide to bundle Pharo with your GPL-ed code, then the whole package will be terminally infected, including all the source code. Pharo or any other loaded libraries in the distro will be considered as GPL. Pharo is under MIT, so you can sublicense it, however if someone decided to contribute some code to your distribution (even if it was to Pharo), the contribution would be considered GPL and only the author would be able to put it to Pharo under the original MIT license. If you are wondering whether you can distribute Pharo with GPL code linked to it and keep the rest MIT, then the answer is no (and GPL v3 is particularly anal about this, as people are trying to work around it with v2). This is the reason why LGPL exists. LGPL is not contagious. But again, I don't see how Pharo bootstrap changes any of this. Peter On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.s...@gmail.com> wrote: > I do not think that the bootstrap changed anything. :) > We will stay away from GPL. > May be you can talk to the people of the libraries you want to use and > see if they are interested in a dual license. > > Stef > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Jimmie Houchin <jlhouc...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Pharo 7 to my understanding fundamentally changes Pharo. It is my > > understanding that Pharo 7 starts with a core Pharo kernel and like many > > languages out there, imports or adds code from a variety of external > sources > > to the image being built. > > > > With that understanding, I am curious if that would allow for inclusion > of a > > specific library/module to be licensed as GPL? And it not affect the > other > > code in the composed image? > > > > I am a big believer in the MIT/BSD license and not a big fan of the GPL. > > However, there is software out there that I have avoided looking at the > > source code or attempting to port it to Pharo because it is GPL. I would > > sincerely love if I could now port such a library and license it under > the > > GPL as required, and it not affect any other code outside of that > specific > > library. > > > > I am not a lawyer. Nor do I know any lawyers. Is is possible for someone > to > > get a reasonably definitive answer on this question? > > > > I am sure I am not the only one who has had this desire. I am also sure > that > > I am not the only one who will have this question in the future. So it > would > > be nice to have a proper legal response that could possibly be explicitly > > stated somewhere on the website or on an FAQ or something. > > > > Regardless of the answer, yes or no. It does need to be a settled issue > for > > Pharo. That way someone could know if GPL/LGPL or whatever software > could be > > in the catalog. > > > > Just wanted to put that out there to the community. I look forward to the > > answer, should one be or become available. > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > Jimmie > > > > > > > >
