[Pharo-dev] Spec license
stepharo at free.fr
Fri Aug 29 04:09:45 EDT 2014
I cleaned the MorphicAdapters during a recesss from project writing. I
should finish the last two: menu and menu group.
On 28/8/14 14:21, phil at highoctane.be wrote:
> No, it doesn't.
> We can improve Spec in the core, why wouldn't we be able to?
> We use it in a lot of the tools, so, there are plenty of samples and
> documentation exists.
> One can make sense of what's going on under the hood.
> Have a look at: (this is for Pharo 3.0)
> SpecInterpreter>>interpretASpec:selector: and ComposableModel +
> WindowModel is interesting to look into as well.
> The "famous" NewValueHolder is of interest too.
> then implementors of defaultSpec provide a lot of specs to give to the
> Then one wants to look into the Spec-MorphicAdapters to see how Spec
> maps its view on things with underlying Morphs (e.g. check the
> We can only benefit by caring about this piece on our side, as there
> is tremendous potential in being able to change the underlying system
> (e.g. from Morphic to Bloc for example) in a piecemeal way, without
> breaking all of the tools.
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Henrik Johansen
> <henrik.s.johansen at veloxit.no <mailto:henrik.s.johansen at veloxit.no>>
> Does it really matter?
> If the external repository gets successfully relicensed, or
> Benjamin publishes new improvements as a separate, GPL-licensed
> change set, the end result is the same;
> no improvement he makes will make its way back into the versions
> in Core.
> I may not know his reasons, but I can certainly respect his wish
> that no further contributions are included in a core distribution.
> Whether to maintain/improve the current, MIT-licensed versions in
> Core without him, or unload it all and point potential users to
> the external library, is a separate decision.
> Though, from previous attempts, I’d say the chances of success of
> an external UI-builder framework seeing actual use are rather slim.
> On 28 Aug 2014, at 12:16 , Stephan Eggermont <stephan at stack.nl
> <mailto:stephan at stack.nl>> wrote:
> > I think the license might need further improvements.
> > I've taken a look at the commit history, and it looks
> > to me like there is a licensing problem there.
> > I am no lawyer, so don't know what the
> > exact consequences of that are.
> > The (MIT licensed) Pharo code was copied
> > to the repository without including the copyright
> > notice, as is required by the MIT license.
> > For new contributions, you now have the
> > license agreements, and with git it is
> > perfectly clear what is new, and under
> > the new license, and what is old, and
> > can therefore also be used under the
> > old license. And AFAIK MIT license
> > is compatible with GPL.
> > I have no clue as to the license status of
> > changes between the copying and the
> > relicensing.
> > Of course copyright holding contributors can
> > decide to relicense. The contributors to the
> > Spec-* packages in the Pharo/Pharo30 repo
> > seem to be:
> > AlainPlantec
> > AndreiChis
> > BenComan
> > BenjaminVanRyseghem
> > BernardoContreras
> > CamilloBruni
> > CamilleTeruel
> > ChristopheDemarey
> > ClementBera
> > DamienCassou
> > ErwanDouaille
> > EstebanLorenzano
> > GabrielOmarCotelli
> > GuillermoPolito
> > HernanMoralesDurand
> > IgorStasenko
> > LeoGassman
> > MarcusDenker
> > MartinDias
> > NicolaiHess
> > PabloHerrero
> > PavelKrivanek
> > PhilippeBack
> > RobertoMinelli
> > SeanDeNigris
> > SebastianTleye
> > StephaneDucasse
> > SvenVanCaekenberghe
> > TorstenBergmann
> > TudorGirba
> > YuriyTymchuk
> > Stephan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pharo-dev