On Aug 30, 2010, at 9:57 PM, Nicolas Cellier wrote:
Hi Pharoers, I'm happy to read mail from Torsten, Igor and Miguel, thank you guys that's constructive. Andreas expressed his point very well, and i don't think it is hostile, maybe a bit sarcastic or disenchanted, but overall he keeps the door opened. The first thing to do is to cool down, relax and think. The second thing to do is engaging discussion with Andreas.
Of course, the license is of prime importance, not having a license is a showstopper. If license is too restrictive then Andreas will probably fail to reach his goals... There will be de facto full rewrite rather than forks, but the net result will be the same: failure to share packages/libraries.
why? because if there is a rewrite it will be MIT.
That's why I personnally don't find Andreas defensive position a good strategy. Neither the attitude in response... It's like you're happy to throw his work away at first occasion without even trying to negociate.
Oh no. I do not want that people bash us as people stealing work of other people. Read my mail on webClient.
Bad vibrations.
Writing all these mails is even more for me.
Before you engage in this (war)path, please, please, discuss. And remind this saying "il ne faut pas confondre vitesse et précipitation". If no agreement is found then, ok, you'll get a license to carry on.
So far we talk in the desert. Loading WebClient is one line. So this is as easy as to remove.
After the license problem, there is the technical compatibility problem. Discussions about cross fork compatibility, compatibility layers or libraries (a la GREASE) will have to occur anyway, be it about Andreas library or from any other author. So you'll have to take time to discuss. Don't consider this as lost time. These discussions are considered necessary when they regularly happens in Pharo mailing list, aren't they ? It shouldn't be that hard to convince Andreas to change things like and:and:and:. For squeakToUtf8, I don't know, maybe provide some automated rewrite rules, and produce an automated Pharo version ?
I already suggested that. Now there is an important point. Infrastructure code should be supported, accessible to the community. We got burned with graphics andreas' onwership in the past. And yes we learned from that.
Please, discuss, argue, explain why you consider certain constructions as bad style. Propose alternatives (be constructive - remember coopetition ?). I consider being unable to explain one's own choice as a weakness. Don't be weak. Come-on guys, despite Levente's cutting remark, you're not inferior to squeakers ;) (and you don't have to answer to that stupid conclusion).
I will let people decide as I did for the inclusion of webClient and we will rewrite one if necessary and it will be MIT. This will be the same for the equivalent of SqueakSSL we will try as much as possible to offer an infrastructure that let people control their life and make money. Our goal is to have a core that could be bootstrap so to have many packages as external as possible now I thought that it would help people to have webClient and also help us to remove this ugly network package. I should have know before the other HTTPClient library and we will not be here losing our time. Stef