El lun, 30-08-2010 a las 13:06 +0200, Levente Uzonyi escribió:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
I suggest that the people that want and know, group together and build an open-source one.
Why do you have to have your "own" library?
Did I say "pharo library"? reread carefully I said an "open-source one".
What I get from Andreas' words is that he's willing to make it open source if it won't be forked.
This is plain wrong, You CAN'T make something open source and at the same time hope that nobody will fork it. The possibility of forking is one of the main liberties granted by the free and open source software. If Andreas doesn't want anyone to fork then by definition can't be open source. As I said before, a way to avoid forking in an open source project is to be open and accepting code from contributors. Not accepting good code for bad reasons is what leads to forking. I, and I think, every Pharo user, are ok with the package being controlled by Andreas, as long as the patches are accepted and not rejected for bad reasons (like having the package part of pharo core: that is our problem, if there are issues by having it part of pharo core we'll solve them, without bothering Andreas because they are Pharo specific. But he can't also, by the same Open source nature, restrict the uses of the code). We all, greatly respect and admire his technical ability, that has never been denied. But his public interactions has more than one burned a lot of people, and this no-license issue is becoming one of them. We don't want tramps like that of the missing license. When the code was announced it was a public encourage to use it and test it, but we as community went to happy and without checking the license it was included in pharo. That was our error. So please, Andreas, if you want WebClient to be open source please do it, Pharo will use it and send you patches. If not say it too, and we'll find an alternative for this. Cheers -- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx