October 2017 - Pharo-users - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

by Jimmie Houchin

No I have not. I don't tend to go their direction very often. I am an advocate of open source software but am not a fan of FSF's ethics or political opinions. And as you say, that want all software to be GPL. Also, I do prefer to hear third party opinions especially those who have potentially court tested ones. That is ultimately where we find the true definition and understanding. Thanks. Jimmie On 10/02/2017 02:48 PM, Peter UhnÃ¡k wrote: > > But of course this is written by FSF, and for them GPL is not just a > legal matter, but an ethical one (and from their perspective GPL being > a virus infecting other code is a good comparison, because they really > want to take over).

Oct. 2, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

by Peter UhnÃ¡k

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Jimmie Houchin <jlhouchin(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Back on topic. > > To my understanding, if I should port anything GPL licensed that I needed > from some language to a C library and licensed it GPL. Then I called my new > GPL C library via UFFI. I should have no problems at all. Is that a correct > understanding by all? > Have you read the GPL's FAQ? There's a whole section dedicated to combination of works (Combining work with code released under the GPL). https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html#TOCMereAggreg… . But of course this is written by FSF, and for them GPL is not just a legal matter, but an ethical one (and from their perspective GPL being a virus infecting other code is a good comparison, because they really want to take over). Peter

Oct. 2, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] Iceberg and proxy

by Vitor Medina Cruz

git push via command line works fine. When I try to pull, for example, from Iceberg it says "a connection with the server cannot be estabilished". I am using a cntlm bypass proxy with loggin on, and Iceberg is using it, but it fails while normal Zinc usage is ok. I will try to understand better what is happening.... On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > hi, > > if you have the ssh port restricted, you need to use one that is notâ¦but > then, is not clear how it will work on server side. > can you try if you can do command line git push in your project? > > Esteban > > On 2 Oct 2017, at 19:57, Vitor Medina Cruz <vitormcruz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello! > > Iceberg donât work behind a proxy? I have made proper proxy configuration, > if I use Zinc, for example, the proxy information is used, but that donât > seems to be the case for Iceberg. > > Regards, > > Vito > > >

Oct. 2, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

by Jimmie Houchin

Thanks for the reply and the link. Reasonably informative, but unfortunately not as definitive as one would like. What a mess. Makes me really appreciate the permissive licenses. No headaches. :) I was just curious if that was an option. Fortunately I believe I have alternatives to what I was looking to do. So I can avoid it all together. Someone posted a view by the Racket developers on their understanding of their choice of the LGPL for Racket. It seems that they are switching to MIT/Apache for Racket 7, the next version. They had all contributors sign agreements to the relicensing. https://github.com/racket/racket/issues/1570 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/racket-dev/FiBLEZ-fmn8/8uLTbNamEwAJ Again thanks for the lesson and help. Jimmie On 10/02/2017 01:47 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: > >> On 2 Oct 2017, at 19:45, Jimmie Houchin <jlhouchin(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Back on topic. >> >> To my understanding, if I should port anything GPL licensed that I needed from some language to a C library and licensed it GPL. Then I called my new GPL C library via UFFI. I should have no problems at all. Is that a correct understanding by all? >> >> Does this look like a good approach for most anyone in the Pharo community if they desire to port and use GPL software? > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Libraries > > There are different opinions, but I seem to clearly remember the GNU ReadLine case: even though it is a library that you can link to, using it is only allowed by other GPL programs. > >> Thanks. >> >> Jimmie >> >> >> On 09/15/2017 03:49 PM, Jimmie Houchin wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> Pharo 7 to my understanding fundamentally changes Pharo. It is my understanding that Pharo 7 starts with a core Pharo kernel and like many languages out there, imports or adds code from a variety of external sources to the image being built. >>> >>> With that understanding, I am curious if that would allow for inclusion of a specific library/module to be licensed as GPL? And it not affect the other code in the composed image? >>> >>> I am a big believer in the MIT/BSD license and not a big fan of the GPL. However, there is software out there that I have avoided looking at the source code or attempting to port it to Pharo because it is GPL. I would sincerely love if I could now port such a library and license it under the GPL as required, and it not affect any other code outside of that specific library. >>> >>> I am not a lawyer. Nor do I know any lawyers. Is is possible for someone to get a reasonably definitive answer on this question? >>> >>> I am sure I am not the only one who has had this desire. I am also sure that I am not the only one who will have this question in the future. So it would be nice to have a proper legal response that could possibly be explicitly stated somewhere on the website or on an FAQ or something. >>> >>> Regardless of the answer, yes or no. It does need to be a settled issue for Pharo. That way someone could know if GPL/LGPL or whatever software could be in the catalog. >>> >>> Just wanted to put that out there to the community. I look forward to the answer, should one be or become available. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> >>> Jimmie >>> >>> >> >

Oct. 2, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] Iceberg and proxy

by Esteban Lorenzano

hi, if you have the ssh port restricted, you need to use one that is notâ¦but then, is not clear how it will work on server side. can you try if you can do command line git push in your project? Esteban > On 2 Oct 2017, at 19:57, Vitor Medina Cruz <vitormcruz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello! > Iceberg donât work behind a proxy? I have made proper proxy configuration, if I use Zinc, for example, the proxy information is used, but that donât seems to be the case for Iceberg. > > Regards, > > Vito > >

Oct. 2, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

> On 2 Oct 2017, at 19:45, Jimmie Houchin <jlhouchin(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Back on topic. > > To my understanding, if I should port anything GPL licensed that I needed from some language to a C library and licensed it GPL. Then I called my new GPL C library via UFFI. I should have no problems at all. Is that a correct understanding by all? > > Does this look like a good approach for most anyone in the Pharo community if they desire to port and use GPL software? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Libraries There are different opinions, but I seem to clearly remember the GNU ReadLine case: even though it is a library that you can link to, using it is only allowed by other GPL programs. > Thanks. > > Jimmie > > > On 09/15/2017 03:49 PM, Jimmie Houchin wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Pharo 7 to my understanding fundamentally changes Pharo. It is my understanding that Pharo 7 starts with a core Pharo kernel and like many languages out there, imports or adds code from a variety of external sources to the image being built. >> >> With that understanding, I am curious if that would allow for inclusion of a specific library/module to be licensed as GPL? And it not affect the other code in the composed image? >> >> I am a big believer in the MIT/BSD license and not a big fan of the GPL. However, there is software out there that I have avoided looking at the source code or attempting to port it to Pharo because it is GPL. I would sincerely love if I could now port such a library and license it under the GPL as required, and it not affect any other code outside of that specific library. >> >> I am not a lawyer. Nor do I know any lawyers. Is is possible for someone to get a reasonably definitive answer on this question? >> >> I am sure I am not the only one who has had this desire. I am also sure that I am not the only one who will have this question in the future. So it would be nice to have a proper legal response that could possibly be explicitly stated somewhere on the website or on an FAQ or something. >> >> Regardless of the answer, yes or no. It does need to be a settled issue for Pharo. That way someone could know if GPL/LGPL or whatever software could be in the catalog. >> >> Just wanted to put that out there to the community. I look forward to the answer, should one be or become available. >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> Jimmie >> >> > >

Oct. 2, 2017

Iceberg and proxy

by Vitor Medina Cruz

Hello! Iceberg donât work behind a proxy? I have made proper proxy configuration, if I use Zinc, for example, the proxy information is used, but that donât seems to be the case for Iceberg. Regards, Vitor

Oct. 2, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

by Jimmie Houchin

Back on topic. To my understanding, if I should port anything GPL licensed that I needed from some language to a C library and licensed it GPL. Then I called my new GPL C library via UFFI. I should have no problems at all. Is that a correct understanding by all? Does this look like a good approach for most anyone in the Pharo community if they desire to port and use GPL software? Thanks. Jimmie On 09/15/2017 03:49 PM, Jimmie Houchin wrote: > Hello, > > Pharo 7 to my understanding fundamentally changes Pharo. It is my > understanding that Pharo 7 starts with a core Pharo kernel and like > many languages out there, imports or adds code from a variety of > external sources to the image being built. > > With that understanding, I am curious if that would allow for > inclusion of a specific library/module to be licensed as GPL? And it > not affect the other code in the composed image? > > I am a big believer in the MIT/BSD license and not a big fan of the > GPL. However, there is software out there that I have avoided looking > at the source code or attempting to port it to Pharo because it is > GPL. I would sincerely love if I could now port such a library and > license it under the GPL as required, and it not affect any other code > outside of that specific library. > > I am not a lawyer. Nor do I know any lawyers. Is is possible for > someone to get a reasonably definitive answer on this question? > > I am sure I am not the only one who has had this desire. I am also > sure that I am not the only one who will have this question in the > future. So it would be nice to have a proper legal response that could > possibly be explicitly stated somewhere on the website or on an FAQ or > something. > > Regardless of the answer, yes or no. It does need to be a settled > issue for Pharo. That way someone could know if GPL/LGPL or whatever > software could be in the catalog. > > Just wanted to put that out there to the community. I look forward to > the answer, should one be or become available. > > Thanks. > > > Jimmie > >

Oct. 2, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] Equals and HashCode Builder

by Vitor Medina Cruz

Denis, That can be done with an canEqual implementation as described by http://www.artima.com/lejava/articles/equality.html. For this reason, itâs better to multiply successive fields by a constant > (e.g. shifting left by 2) before XORing them into the hash. But then, for > objects with lots of fields, the later ones are lot completely, because > they are multiplied by a number so large that they are out of the range of > the hash. > I think this exactly what HasCodeBuidler does, however I saw no special treatment for hashes made of many fields.... On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Prof. Andrew P. Black <black(a)cs.pdx.edu> wrote: > > > On 2 Oct 2017, at 16:37 , Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com> > wrote: > > > > 2. #hash > > ^ var1 hash bitXor: (var2 hash bitXor: var3 hash) > > Is this implementation always safe? It's what I usually hand roll based > on > > what I've seen, but Andres Valloud wrote a whole (large) book on > hashing, so > > I've always wondered if I was missing somethingâ¦ > > If you read Andres book (which is hard, because he wonât make it available > online), you will learn that itâs better to > take the order of the instance variables into account. #bitXor: is > commutative, so it of course ignores order. > > In other words, if you have a Point with x and y fields, then 3@9 and 9@3 > will have the same hash. > > For this reason, itâs better to multiply successive fields by a constant > (e.g. shifting left by 2) before XORing them into the hash. But then, for > objects with lots of fields, the later ones are lot completely, because > they are multiplied by a number so large that they are out of the range of > the hash. > > One can avoid this by using a circular shift to implement the multiply. > > All of this was, I thought, implemented in a #hashCombine: method, but I > canât find it in my image. Maybe some other Smalltalk ... > > > >

Oct. 2, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] Roasssal not working on Windows with Pharo 6.1

by kmo

The problem is fixed now. I loaded up pharo at lunchtime and all the roassal images worked perfectly. No problems at all. But I had done nothing. No changes at all. The only thing I can think of is that I may have rebooted since the last time I ran pharo. But I'm not sure. So it's all still a mystery but at least everything is working now. -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html

Oct. 2, 2017