September 2016 - Pharo-users

UFFI documentation state

by Dimitris Chloupis

Hey Esteban hows the documentation for UFFI going ? I will most likely go down the Memory Mapped File (Shared Memory) for uniting Pharo with Unreal instead of making a Pharo to C++ compiler since it will be much simpler for me but I will need the FFI. Is it stable enough both FFI and its documentation or should I wait more ?

Sept. 7, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] UFFI cleanup of externally allocated memory (was Re: UFFI const, unsigned, opaque-ish types)

by Ben Coman

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 8:08 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > sorry for arriving so late to this, but I was on holidays :) > this is how autoRelease works: > > 1) #autoRelease of an object registers object for finalisation with a particular executor. Then behaviour is divided: > > 2.1.1) for ExternalAddresses, it just registers in regular way, who will call #finalize on GC > 2.1.2) finalize will just call a free assuming ExternalAddress was allocated (which is a malloc) > > 2.2.1) for all FFIExternalReference, it will register for finalisation what #resourceData answers (normally, the handle of the object) > 2.2.2) finalisation process will call the object class>>#finalizeResourceData: method, with the #resourceData result as parameter > 2.2.3) each kind of external reference can decide how to free that data (by default is also just freeing). > > An example of this is how CairoFontFace works (or AthensCairoSurface). At the bottom of FFIExternalResourceExecutor class comment I read... "Note that in #finalizeResourceData: you cannot access any other properties of your instance, since it is already garbage collected." But in my experiments it seems okay to access instance variables in #finalize. For example... CXString >> autoRelease self class finalizationRegistry add: self CXString >> finalize Transcript crShow: 'Finalizing CXString ' ; show: self private_flags. self dispose. Transcript show: ', done!'. CXString >>private_flags "This method was automatically generated" ^handle unsignedLongAt: 5 Libclang getClangVersion autoRelease. Smalltalk garbageCollect. "==> Finalizing CXString 1, done! " Is this an unlucky coincidence? Or maybe something changed from NB to UFFI? (There is a reference to NB there) I am wary of believing my results contrary to the comment. That old engineering principle "When things work, it may be only reinforcing your misconceptions." :) cheers -ben > In you case, you will have something like: > > FFIExternalObject subclass: #CXString > > CXString class>>#finalizeResourceData: version > self ffiCall: #(void clang_disposeString(void *version)) > > notice that here I casted to void*â¦ this is because actually resourceData answers a pointer, not the object. > > cheers, > Esteban

Sept. 7, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] [ANN] Territorial

by Dimitris Chloupis

Ironically enough "this is our way , take it or leave it" would not work for Pharo because its smalltalk and basically smalltalk by architecture allow you to deeply modify the system from the get go. This make Pharo technically impossible to control from a dictator and committee point of view like lets say Python or Linux. CPython is a single implementation , but with pharo every pharo app is essentially a new pharo implementation. The moment you modify or extend the pharo image you make a new pharo implementation. I don't like the tone Stef is expressing , he is quite rude and definitely does not represent the tone of the community which far more open to dialogue but he is correct , GPL would never have worked for Pharo. Actually I dont think I have seen a language that is fairly popular under a GPL license. There is of course software under GPL which is sucessful commercially, Blender is an example, but GPL does not cover 3d assets, music and sound. In that case you use another kind of license like creative commons or heavily modify GPL to extend beyond code. So it was definitely not GPL that made Blender popular, actually it caused a problem with game developers because games using the BGE (Blender Game Engine) were at first considered data because the code was packaged inside the blend file which had a binary format so that meant it was not covered by GPL because it considered the whole game code just data (there is a separate executable for loading the game code) but then Blender decided to change this also to GPL with extending its license and that pretty much killed commercial games made with Blender. So technically you could get away with GPLing Pharo because you could argue that Pharo image is merely data that the VM loads and not real source code, which is kinda correct but it would be messy and the legal interpretation very confusing and uncertain ( leaves a lot of room for legal interpretation ) . As a company you cannot risk this , especially while you expect to make big profit. As stef said GPL is like a virus, it spread anywhere it touches. Even if all you do is add a tiny bit of GPL code inside the Pharo image would turn the entire Pharo implementation including the VM into GPL and because Pharo tries to approach as many companies as possible as most other languages do , because money helps improve the popularity and the quality of the code, MIT is definitely the way to do. So its more a "have to" than a "must to". Also double license or not its kinda pointless, the moment something becomes MIT you can be rest assured that people will pick MIT over GPL. This because you can turn MIT to GPL but you cannot turn GPL to MIT. So even if you want your project GPLed , MIT is still more than enough and of course most people will pick MIT for commercial apps so they don't need to open source their code. So no, it does not matter that Spec is double licensed , or if it is legal that is double licensed , since its active implementation is MIT this all you need to know. So for Pharo and pretty much almost all other programming languages out there who aspire to be used by as many people as possible and play an active role in the software market MIT like license is a mandatory choice. The irony of people not wanting to open source their code but wanting to use open source code. Its this type of thinking that justifies the existence of GPL. On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 2:59 PM Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas < offray.luna(a)mutabit.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > On 07/09/16 13:39, stepharo wrote: > > > >> We should not have "The Pharo Way" (TM) or "No way!"... suddenly > >> Markus talk about feedback loops comes to mind, particularly the > >> slide on page 53, regarding "An open source smalltalk ignoring all > >> community contributions"[2]. This is far for being the case in this > >> community and we can keep that scenario at safe distance, if we show > >> options. So, dual license is an option, git is an option, markdown is > >> an option. Pharo as a place with options is one where Pharo can > >> fulfill its vision for more people. Let's make these options visible > >> and figure out the way the work better for a wider community. > > It is amazing how you like talking. > > > > Yes. I like. Is the way to know unwritten history. Not all the people in > the community know the details as you do, so talking is the way of going > out of misconceptions, like mine about dual license or state positions, > like why I don't use Pillar. The "it has been discussed, this is our > way, take or leave it" doesn't help in understanding way. So yes, I'm > all about encouraging dialog/talk if it helps to understand. > > Bye, > > Offray > >

Sept. 7, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] [ANN] Territorial

by Esteban Lorenzano

Hi, Please let me stress this: you can put the license of your choice to your code. Is your right and we ensured it continues being your right by choosing MIT license for Pharo. That means that all frameworks, apps, etc. that runs on Pharo has to be MIT? No! YOU CAN DECIDE. But then, if it is not MIT, your code will not be considered for inclusion, just that (but many times you do not have that in mind, so who cares). In my own case, if is not MIT (or some permissive license like BSD, Apache, etc.) I will not even look inside itâ¦ why? because I do not want to be âinfectedâ: I do not want to have the risk of copying (even innocently) some copyrighted ideas. You do not know the mess that was rewrite entire parts of Pharo to be able to release itâ¦ So, in the case of contributions to Pharo, yesâ¦ is âour wayâ (which is not a personal statement, is how this community choose to work). Anywayâ¦ of course you can always put the license you want to your code (and that applies to Territorial too). cheers, Esteban ps: and please forgive Stef for being harsh on thisâ¦ the Spec affaire was painful for us, we do not like to put lawyers and that kind of thing in playâ¦ > On 07 Sep 2016, at 14:08, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: > > > > Le 7/9/16 Ã 13:58, Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas a Ã©crit : >> Hi, >> >> >> On 07/09/16 13:39, stepharo wrote: >>> >>>> We should not have "The Pharo Way" (TM) or "No way!"... suddenly Markus talk about feedback loops comes to mind, particularly the slide on page 53, regarding "An open source smalltalk ignoring all community contributions"[2]. This is far for being the case in this community and we can keep that scenario at safe distance, if we show options. So, dual license is an option, git is an option, markdown is an option. Pharo as a place with options is one where Pharo can fulfill its vision for more people. Let's make these options visible and figure out the way the work better for a wider community. >>> It is amazing how you like talking. >>> >> >> Yes. I like. Is the way to know unwritten history. Not all the people in the community know the details as you do, so talking is the way of going out of misconceptions, like mine about dual license or state positions, like why I don't use Pillar. The "it has been discussed, this is our way, take or leave it" doesn't help in understanding way. So yes, I'm all about encouraging dialog/talk if it helps to understand. > > this is why I added the comment on the pharo contribution page. > >> >> Bye, >> >> Offray >> >> > >

Sept. 7, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] [ANN] Territorial

by stepharo

Le 7/9/16 Ã 13:58, Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas a Ã©crit : > Hi, > > > On 07/09/16 13:39, stepharo wrote: >> >>> We should not have "The Pharo Way" (TM) or "No way!"... suddenly >>> Markus talk about feedback loops comes to mind, particularly the >>> slide on page 53, regarding "An open source smalltalk ignoring all >>> community contributions"[2]. This is far for being the case in this >>> community and we can keep that scenario at safe distance, if we show >>> options. So, dual license is an option, git is an option, markdown >>> is an option. Pharo as a place with options is one where Pharo can >>> fulfill its vision for more people. Let's make these options visible >>> and figure out the way the work better for a wider community. >> It is amazing how you like talking. >> > > Yes. I like. Is the way to know unwritten history. Not all the people > in the community know the details as you do, so talking is the way of > going out of misconceptions, like mine about dual license or state > positions, like why I don't use Pillar. The "it has been discussed, > this is our way, take or leave it" doesn't help in understanding way. > So yes, I'm all about encouraging dialog/talk if it helps to understand. this is why I added the comment on the pharo contribution page. > > Bye, > > Offray > >

Sept. 7, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] [ANN] Territorial

by PBKResearch

Stef > We should not have "The Pharo Way" (TM) or "No way!"... suddenly > Markus talk about feedback loops comes to mind, particularly the slide > on page 53, regarding "An open source smalltalk ignoring all community > contributions"[2]. This is far for being the case in this community > and we can keep that scenario at safe distance, if we show options. > So, dual license is an option, git is an option, markdown is an > option. Pharo as a place with options is one where Pharo can fulfill > its vision for more people. Let's make these options visible and > figure out the way the work better for a wider community. It is amazing how you like talking. We can argue and disagree, but let's do it politely. This is just downright rude, and quite unnecessary. Peter Kenny

Sept. 7, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] [ANN] Territorial

by Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas

Hi, On 07/09/16 13:39, stepharo wrote: > >> We should not have "The Pharo Way" (TM) or "No way!"... suddenly >> Markus talk about feedback loops comes to mind, particularly the >> slide on page 53, regarding "An open source smalltalk ignoring all >> community contributions"[2]. This is far for being the case in this >> community and we can keep that scenario at safe distance, if we show >> options. So, dual license is an option, git is an option, markdown is >> an option. Pharo as a place with options is one where Pharo can >> fulfill its vision for more people. Let's make these options visible >> and figure out the way the work better for a wider community. > It is amazing how you like talking. > Yes. I like. Is the way to know unwritten history. Not all the people in the community know the details as you do, so talking is the way of going out of misconceptions, like mine about dual license or state positions, like why I don't use Pillar. The "it has been discussed, this is our way, take or leave it" doesn't help in understanding way. So yes, I'm all about encouraging dialog/talk if it helps to understand. Bye, Offray

Sept. 7, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] [ANN] Territorial

by stepharo

Le 7/9/16 Ã 11:03, Dimitris Chloupis a Ã©crit : > GPL is a license that courts have already recognized in many cases. > > Not that they have much of a choice > > A license is basically a contract and contracts are legally binding as > long as acceptance can be proved for both sides. > > As a lawyer I would not advise any client to try to challenge GPL on > two grounds: > > a) Infringement of contract makes you liable to compensation and gives > the legal right to the other party to have a court decisions that > forbids you to keep selling / distributing your software. If you > violate the court decision that entitles the opposing party for > further litigation and compensation. In some cases comes with the gift > of prison time depending on national law > > b) Its also an infringement on copyright which is even more litigation > and much more compensations > > Also from a practical point of view GPL is the only license that can > really protect open source software on the premise when you have a > permitting license like MIT what you do is open the door to countless > of companies that want to do business with you for selling their > closed source but also countless of threats. A company could easily > for example take Pharo close source it and heavily upgrade , as a > result many Pharo users could migrate to this heavily improved new > close source Pharo essentially killing or shrinking substantially the > MIT Pharo. This is actually what Pharo did for Squeak with the big > difference that Pharo is still open source. Indeed and we knew the risk. > > Of course MIT license is what most companies would prefer for using > your code , though LGPL is also a favored choice. You can also have > modified GPL license that allows its usage on closed source system > which is basically what LGPL is , but with the difference you can put > any term you want in it. Most popular languages come with their own > license anyway. > > If what you claimed was true even slightly that would mean that the > law would not protect GPL, which in extension would mean no protection > for licenses which in extension would mean no protection for contracts > which as you can imagine is just not practical and would through the > entire global commerce into a chaos, legal or non legal. > > In case of Europe things are better on the legal protection front > because EU law has done an excellent job at harmonizing national > legislation and protecting basic legal rights. > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 10:27 AM stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr > <mailto:stepharo@free.fr>> wrote: > > > > Le 7/9/16 Ã 08:53, Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas a Ã©crit : >> >> Hi, >> >> Nice to see more diversity on license choice and projects in this >> community. We have the permissive MIT license by default in >> almost all Pharo and related project, but seeing GPL and AGPL in >> projects like Spec and now Territorial increase the sense of >> choice and engagement. >> > No sorry I cannot let you say such stupid statement. > Spec is not GPL. And GPL is really dangerous for image based > system. It is a plague. > > We do not want to force nice people (the one that could follow a > license) to have to decide to use another language > just because they do not want to give their work for free. > Open source > > Second you do not know what the mess it can be. > >> In my case as a freelancer, having such licenses as base for the >> code of my works has helped me against big institutions that have >> aggressive practices regarding "Intelectual Property" and want >> everything for them all the time. Even in this community we have >> seen some interesting work that can not be contributed back to >> the community until the community makes something open by default >> (something related Java support comes to mind). >> > You do not know the story behind. And all Moose is BSD and Pharo > ecosystem is MIT. So you can run away with them and get rich. > Now none of them force people to open source what they are doing > >> Having a license that enforce reciprocity by default (GPL, AGPL) >> instead of "do what you want" ones (MIT, BSD) helps to keep the >> commons protected against predatory enclosure, >> > No it does not protect anything. It binds nice people to act > nicely but does not do anything against assholes. So this is a > lose / lose situation. > >> even if you're a small freelancer and the ones really interested >> in such enclosure can still contact the author and pay the extra >> price that comes with not reciprocity to the wider community. >> > You dream. Such license will not protect anyone. > There are millions companies out there using GPL code and not > opening their work. > Any code in GPL will not be considered for anything in our community. > > > >> Thanks HernÃ¡n, >> >> Offray >> >> >> On 07/09/16 06:48, phil(a)highoctane.be <mailto:phil@highoctane.be> >> wrote: >>> In Tiki, there has been such discussions as well. >>> >>> https://tiki.org/License >>> >>> But yeah, MIT license is the best thing :-) >>> >>> Phil >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 12:25 AM, HernÃ¡n Morales Durand >>> <hernan.morales(a)gmail.com <mailto:hernan.morales@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> I thought for a while about the license. >>> >>> Fixing the ASP loophole means trying to escape from >>> companies using a trick to avoid returning changes to the >>> code back to the community[1]. I agree with such position. >>> GNU AGPL is free, copyleft, approved by OSI, FSF, and used >>> by successful projects : MongoDB, SugarCRM, OTRS, etc. If >>> anyone want to discuss collaboration or re-licensing, for >>> example to monetize library services, feel free to contact >>> me privately. >>> >>> HernÃ¡n >>> >>> [1] >>> http://www.fabcapo.com/2008/02/we-have-submitted-agpl-to-osi.html >>> >>> >>> 2016-09-06 18:03 GMT-03:00 Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com >>> <mailto:tudor@tudorgirba.com>>: >>> >>> Hi HernÃ¡n, >>> >>> I believe Stef was asking about the choice of picking a >>> viral license vs the permissive MIT one that we use in >>> code that gets into Pharo (and several other larger >>> related projects). >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Doru >>> >>> >>> > On Sep 6, 2016, at 10:28 PM, HernÃ¡n Morales Durand >>> <hernan.morales(a)gmail.com >>> <mailto:hernan.morales@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> > >>> > Hi Stef, >>> > >>> > I used the License Differentiator tool at >>> http://oss-watch.ac.uk/apps/licdiff/ >>> > >>> > I like it because it fixes the 'ASP (application >>> service provider) loophole' or 'privacy loophole' >>> problem (See Choice Six in the tool) >>> > >>> > HernÃ¡n >>> > >>> > >>> > 2016-09-06 16:47 GMT-03:00 stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr >>> <mailto:stepharo@free.fr>>: >>> > Hi hernan >>> > >>> > why do you picked AGPL? We try to protect our >>> community against license hell. >>> > Stef >>> > Le 6/9/16 Ã 11:40, HernÃ¡n Morales Durand a Ã©crit : >>> >> >>> >> Hi Stephan, >>> >> >>> >> 2016-09-06 2:52 GMT-03:00 Stephan Eggermont >>> <stephan(a)stack.nl <mailto:stephan@stack.nl>>: >>> >> On 06/09/16 06:24, HernÃ¡n Morales Durand wrote: >>> >> >>> >> I am happy to announce the release of Territorial, a >>> new Smalltalk >>> >> library for Geographical Information Retrieval in >>> geopolitical objects. >>> >> >>> >> Nice. Please tell us about your license choice >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> License of the library is AGPL v3 (it is in the Notes >>> and disclaimers of the manual) >>> >> License of the documentation is CC BY-SA 3.0 >>> >> >>> >> Cheers, >>> >> >>> >> HernÃ¡n >>> >> >>> >> Stephan >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> >>> -- >>> www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com> >>> www.feenk.com <http://www.feenk.com> >>> >>> "If you can't say why something is relevant, >>> it probably isn't." >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >

Sept. 7, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] [ANN] Territorial

by stepharo

Le 7/9/16 Ã 10:49, Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas a Ã©crit : > Hi Doru, > > As a newcomer to the community, that situation was not clear for me > from the blog post I linked, and I was referred there following the > "News" tab on the spec.st site, in my first approach to learning it. > > I think that a better explanation on why GPL is not a good fit in the > Pharo ecosystem is important, because HernÃ¡n rationality behind his > license chose is sound. I switched mine from GLP to MIT quickly to fit > Pharo, but also without any major explanation. this has been debated during so many years that we do not want to do it anymore. > Something similar to what, the Smalltalk inspired project, Etoile has > done [1], seems a position that explains why licensing choosing is > confined, avoiding GPL/AGPL, and favouring LGPL, 3 clause BSD and MIT > and common domain. This works better that "GPL is a plague", "only > MIT", or "you can't make money with Free Software". > > [1] http://etoileos.com/dev/licensing/ We should do that. I added a short probably bad text under http://pharo.org/contribute if someone what to enhance it, feel free. > Maybe the place for linking such explanation is Smalltalkhub, because > is the place where most people, specially newbies, are > releasing/licensing their code. So offering choice, while advising > which one works better for Pharo ecosystem integration seems more > inviting a gives people an informed overview of the different > possibilities to contribute back to the community. > > So, HernÃ¡n, Steph and Doru, thanks for bringing this and teach me with > the dialogue about it. > > Cheers, > > Offray > > > On 07/09/16 10:23, Tudor Girba wrote: >> Hi, >> >> A note about Spec: What you are seeing in the announcement from >> August 2014, on the spec.st site is an announcement about a fork of >> Spec. The Spec from Pharo has always been MIT. Even the spec.st >> related repository on GitHub is now under MIT. See here: >> https://github.com/spec-framework/spec >> >> People are free to choose what they want with their projects, but in >> Pharo we will only consider code that is MIT. Please do not use the >> Spec as an example for dual licensing because it does not fit :). See >> above. >> >> Cheers, >> Doru >> >> >>> On Sep 7, 2016, at 10:07 AM, Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas >>> <offray.luna(a)mutabit.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> >>> On 07/09/16 09:26, stepharo wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Le 7/9/16 Ã 08:53, Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas a Ã©crit : >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Nice to see more diversity on license choice and projects in this >>>>> community. We have the permissive MIT license by default in almost >>>>> all Pharo and related project, but seeing GPL and AGPL in projects >>>>> like Spec and now Territorial increase the sense of choice and >>>>> engagement. >>>>> >>>> No sorry I cannot let you say such stupid statement. >>>> Spec is not GPL. >>> Is not me who is doing the statement, is Benjamin Van Ryseghem, >>> which was pretty involved in its development, since 2014: >>> >>> http://spec.st/license/gpl/mit/2014/08/15/Spec_change_license.html >>>> And GPL is really dangerous for image based system. It is a plague. >>>> >>>> We do not want to force nice people (the one that could follow a >>>> license) to have to decide to use another language >>>> just because they do not want to give their work for free. >>>> Open source >>>> >>>> Second you do not know what the mess it can be. >>>> >>> Yes, I don't know, but the Spec case shows that dual licensing is >>> possible, so is not a binary decision. >>>>> In my case as a freelancer, having such licenses as base for the >>>>> code of my works has helped me against big institutions that have >>>>> aggressive practices regarding "Intelectual Property" and want >>>>> everything for them all the time. Even in this community we have >>>>> seen some interesting work that can not be contributed back to the >>>>> community until the community makes something open by default >>>>> (something related Java support comes to mind). >>>>> >>>> You do not know the story behind. And all Moose is BSD and Pharo >>>> ecosystem is MIT. So you can run away with them and get rich. >>>> Now none of them force people to open source what they are doing >>> Or you can do the work twice, one close source and with legal >>> bindings for not releasing anything and the second time open source >>> in a community fashion. >>> >>>>> Having a license that enforce reciprocity by default (GPL, AGPL) >>>>> instead of "do what you want" ones (MIT, BSD) helps to keep the >>>>> commons protected against predatory enclosure, >>>>> >>>> No it does not protect anything. It binds nice people to act nicely >>>> but does not do anything against assholes. So this is a lose / lose >>>> situation. >>>> >>> Well, in my context it has protected my against big institutions to >>> close my work. Same for CC-By-SA (which enforces reciprocity and is >>> behind most of the Pharo books). Licensing is a complex issue, it >>> doesn't work the same in all the contexts and products. I don't know >>> the specificity for image base development, but dual license is >>> applicable here, as the Spec case shows. >>> >>>>> even if you're a small freelancer and the ones really interested >>>>> in such enclosure can still contact the author and pay the extra >>>>> price that comes with not reciprocity to the wider community. >>>>> >>>> You dream. Such license will not protect anyone. >>>> There are millions companies out there using GPL code and not >>>> opening their work. >>> Not anyone. See Cisco case [1]. So maybe there are millions >>> companies misbehaving about the license implications, but there are >>> also companies with millions behind that are in (forced?) compliance >>> because the GPL protection is working. This has implications in >>> projects like guifi.net, which is using Cisco GPLed routers to build >>> one of the biggest p2p WiFi networks in the world (35,464 nodes >>> covering 58,383 kilometers) [1a]. >>> >>> [1] >>> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2009/05/cisco-settles-fsf-gpl… >>> [1a] http://guifi.net/ >>> >>>> Any code in GPL will not be considered for anything in our community. >>>> >>> Except for Spec and its dual license model. >>> >>> My call is to consider differences. We should not have "The Pharo >>> Way" (TM) or "No way!"... suddenly Markus talk about feedback loops >>> comes to mind, particularly the slide on page 53, regarding "An open >>> source smalltalk ignoring all community contributions"[2]. This is >>> far for being the case in this community and we can keep that >>> scenario at safe distance, if we show options. So, dual license is >>> an option, git is an option, markdown is an option. Pharo as a place >>> with options is one where Pharo can fulfill its vision for more >>> people. Let's make these options visible and figure out the way the >>> work better for a wider community. >>> >>> [2] http://marcusdenker.de/talks/16ESUG/FeedbackLoopsAnnotated.pdf >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Offray >>> >> -- >> www.tudorgirba.com >> www.feenk.com >> >> "Every successful trip needs a suitable vehicle." >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >

Sept. 7, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] [ANN] Territorial

by stepharo

>>> Hi, >>> >>> Nice to see more diversity on license choice and projects in this >>> community. We have the permissive MIT license by default in almost >>> all Pharo and related project, but seeing GPL and AGPL in projects >>> like Spec and now Territorial increase the sense of choice and >>> engagement. >>> >> No sorry I cannot let you say such stupid statement. >> Spec is not GPL. > > Is not me who is doing the statement, is Benjamin Van Ryseghem, which > was pretty involved in its development, since 2014: > > http://spec.st/license/gpl/mit/2014/08/15/Spec_change_license.html Pffff. Ben did it just because he wanted to impact us. Now he cannot change the license like that because he was paid during the development of Spec by our team and lawyers explained to him nicely that you cannot change the license of a software system if all the contributors do not agree and I did not (because a large part of Spec are my ideas). >> And GPL is really dangerous for image based system. It is a plague. >> >> We do not want to force nice people (the one that could follow a >> license) to have to decide to use another language >> just because they do not want to give their work for free. >> Open source >> >> Second you do not know what the mess it can be. >> > > Yes, I don't know, but the Spec case shows that dual licensing is > possible, so is not a binary decision. No again you do not know the truth on that story There is not dual licensing. Period. > >>> >> You do not know the story behind. And all Moose is BSD and Pharo >> ecosystem is MIT. So you can run away with them and get rich. >> Now none of them force people to open source what they are doing > > Or you can do the work twice, one close source and with legal bindings > for not releasing anything and the second time open source in a > community fashion. This is not our way of doing things. > >>> Having a license that enforce reciprocity by default (GPL, AGPL) >>> instead of "do what you want" ones (MIT, BSD) helps to keep the >>> commons protected against predatory enclosure, >>> >> No it does not protect anything. It binds nice people to act nicely >> but does not do anything against assholes. So this is a lose / lose >> situation. >> > > Well, in my context it has protected my against big institutions to > close my work. Same for CC-By-SA (which enforces reciprocity and is > behind most of the Pharo books). Licensing is a complex issue, it > doesn't work the same in all the contexts and products. I don't know > the specificity for image base development, but dual license is > applicable here, as the Spec case shows. No it does not :) GPL is a viral license that was not designed with image (shared memory of programs) in mind. So this is really simple: if you use GPL then do not imagine one instant that one sensible guy (and nice) will load your code in his image. Or he is fool :) > >>> even if you're a small freelancer and the ones really interested in >>> such enclosure can still contact the author and pay the extra price >>> that comes with not reciprocity to the wider community. >>> >> You dream. Such license will not protect anyone. >> There are millions companies out there using GPL code and not opening >> their work. > > Not anyone. See Cisco case [1]. So maybe there are millions companies > misbehaving about the license implications, but there are also > companies with millions behind that are in (forced?) compliance > because the GPL protection is working. This has implications in > projects like guifi.net, which is using Cisco GPLed routers to build > one of the biggest p2p WiFi networks in the world (35,464 nodes > covering 58,383 kilometers) [1a]. > > [1] > http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2009/05/cisco-settles-fsf-gpl… > [1a] http://guifi.net/ I do not care! We are not in the world of laywers mess and we do not want to enter it. Simple. You can argue I do not care. I want to work and get stuff done. > >> Any code in GPL will not be considered for anything in our community. >> > > Except for Spec and its dual license model. No again. > > My call is to consider differences. No in Pharo there is MIT. Period. You do what you want but do not cry if nobody look at your code. > We should not have "The Pharo Way" (TM) or "No way!"... suddenly > Markus talk about feedback loops comes to mind, particularly the slide > on page 53, regarding "An open source smalltalk ignoring all community > contributions"[2]. This is far for being the case in this community > and we can keep that scenario at safe distance, if we show options. > So, dual license is an option, git is an option, markdown is an > option. Pharo as a place with options is one where Pharo can fulfill > its vision for more people. Let's make these options visible and > figure out the way the work better for a wider community. It is amazing how you like talking. > > [2] http://marcusdenker.de/talks/16ESUG/FeedbackLoopsAnnotated.pdf > > Cheers, > > Offray > >

Sept. 7, 2016