Well, I certainly care.. Stef wasn't remarking about license rights, he said didn't understand the smiley face. Frankly, I don't either. After years of teasing from Bryce and now this? What a crushing disappointment. On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com> wrote:
2010/3/10 Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr>:
What the starting point is will depend on to what extent Cog has
been open sourced  (Teleplace may choose to open source single-threaded Cog initially, keeping back the threaded FFI for a while, it may not open source Cog at all; we'll see :) ). May be I the only one to notice the:)  which I have problem to understand since for me it announces that COG may not be open-source.
Isn't this what you wanted to allow companies to do, when you chose the MIT license? Â I don't understand, why should you care?
We  shouldn't. Well, except if previous annoucements strongly suggested this would be the case...
I see some irony...
Not me. Freedom of choice is a political attitude. I understand GPL goal but I do not adhere to it. I respect people pushing it but not in my way. I'm not sure that we should debate that here but we do not have the single answer.
Not sure the goals differ much, but indeed these are two radically different strategies. The question is: would COG have ever started under a GPL derivative? Who knows? Since it did not happen, current choice is between an hypothetical something MIT or nothing... Bah, at least we already get a closure VM in Squeak.
Nicolas
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project