- Pharo-users - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

Jimmie, Since you started this thread, I have to ask. You say you are an advocate of open source software. OK. But are you just on the consumer side or also on the producer side ? In other words, have you written/published/supported any non-trivial open source software ? Are you an academic or are you involved in commercial software (i.e. have you written closed software that you sell or otherwise make money off) ? Sven > On 2 Oct 2017, at 22:06, Jimmie Houchin <jlhouchin(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > 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] Hiding the cursor in pharo and/or bloc

by Aliaksei Syrel

Hi Steven, What you see is not Bloc's cursor (there is no cursor in bloc) It is a Morphic cursor :) Cheers, Alex On 2 October 2017 at 22:19, Steven Costiou <steven.costiou(a)kloum.io> wrote: > Hi, > > i've been playing with bloc, and i am trying to completely remove the > cursor (i.e. always display a blank cursor). I can't find how. Removing the > Pharo cursor would also be ok, but i can't either. I can only show a blank > cursor for a few moments but after moving the mouse too much it becomes > normal again. > > I have tried: > > Cursor currentCursor: Cursor blank (seems not to work ?) > > Cursor blank beCursor (works for a few moments only...) > > Any way to do that permanently ? > > > Steven. >

Oct. 2, 2017

Hiding the cursor in pharo and/or bloc

by Steven Costiou

Hi, i've been playing with bloc, and i am trying to completely remove the cursor (i.e. always display a blank cursor). I can't find how. Removing the Pharo cursor would also be ok, but i can't either. I can only show a blank cursor for a few moments but after moving the mouse too much it becomes normal again. I have tried: Cursor currentCursor: Cursor blank (seems not to work ?) Cursor blank beCursor (works for a few moments only...) Any way to do that permanently ? Steven.

Oct. 2, 2017

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