On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 12:53 PM, kilon alios <kilon.alios@gmail.com> wrote:
If Benjamin does not intend to continue developing in Pharo , that means he will not continue developing Spec. So in any case you need to talk to him and see exactly what his intentions are.
But if he does not want to let us use it as integrated library for Pharo then I don't think you guys have much of a choice. One thing to remember here is that licenses extend to modification and extensions, that means that anyone who makes an extension to Spec or a Spec based app cannot integrate it to Pharo so already Pharo tools using Spec are against the dual license. Personally I would not use such library for my projects because I do care integrating some of my code back to Pharo to contribute to the progress of Pharo.
Spec has been developed under MIT. From there, before the license change, we can fork and do whatever we want. Furthermore, contributors have signed a paper. And Ben has been publishing papers etc, under a budget. So, we can fork and change what we need to. What we cannot do is take the new stuff Ben would do. But as you say, this looks like a dead end anyway. What the heck, we can take Spec from where it is now, this is a core Pharo asset, and make it work and grow, it is not like this tool is done by the way, far from it. And Spec is not Morphic only, it is for all kinds of rendering backends (Seaside, Morphic, Bloc maybe). Phil
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
On 26 Aug 2014, at 11:50, phil@highoctane.be wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
On 26 Aug 2014, at 11:22, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:58, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
There is another option: work together again.
Is an option, in theory. But doesnât looks like happening any time
soon, sadly :(
Well, everybody loses by forking.
Sure but for Ben new commits will be GPL. Pull requests included. Basically, we are fucked on that line I'd say.
@Phil
Look, I don't want to defend or attack either party and the recent license change is a bit dubious, like Marcus said. But for the sake of argument, I think your conclusion is wrong: he says/wants Spec to be managed as an external library that gets integrated back to Pharo from time to time. When doing so, everything remains MIT licensed. Else he wants it to be GPL-ed so that it cannot be integrated in Pharo.
@Esteban
But again: if there is a conflict there are always two solutions, solve it or part ways. Saying the other party made me do it is the same as saying I am right and he is wrong (and this goes for both sides ;-)
Maybe we should start another thread about this. Because the basic question is not about a license or a name change but about how to work together and about control, specifically for parts and/or developers that are external. I know that this is a complex discussion, but if we in general have problems of working modular than we are in trouble, no ?
Sven