- Pharo-users - lists.pharo.org

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

Planning: Pharo Sprints Lille for the rest 2016

by Marcus Denker

Hi Here locally we try to organise one âSprintâ per month were we meet to work on boring issue tracker entries together. (external visitors are welcome!) In the past people organised local sprints at other places at the sane time (e.g. Santiago/Chile). The next dates are: 30 September 28 October 25 November 16 December. Pharo Christmas Party! Marcus

Sept. 7, 2016

Another PunQLite problem?

by PBKResearch

Hello I have been exploring further, following problems mentioned in an earlier post, and I have identified what looks like a definite bug. I can't say whether it explains any of my earlier problems, but it seems worth mentioning in its own right. To be clear, I am using the version posted as TorstenBergmann.28 on 11 May 2016 on the mumez site (https://github.com/mumez/PunQLite) because I couldn't get Esteban's version to work. I am using Moose 6.0 (Pharo 5.0 Latest update: #50761) on Windows 10. I started with this example from the mumez site: "Using explicit transaction" db := PqDatabase open: 'trans.db'. db disableAutoCommit. 1 to: 100 do: [:idx | | key | key := idx asString. db transact: [db at: key put: ('value-', key)] ]. db close. Because I had observed in my previous failures that the database was only supplying one buffer-full of data (1024 bytes), I decided to try the effect of storing longer values in the database. First I created a filler of 900 bytes (the string '123456789' repeated 100 times) and included this in each of the stored values. The returned value of "db at: '1' " was correct - a ByteArray of 907 bytes. Then I doubled the length of the filler and tried again. This time the returned value was only 1024 bytes long - correct as far as it went, but incomplete. When I included the statement 'db fetchBufferSize: 2048', the whole record was retrieved correctly. Note that I did not rewrite the database file to get this correct result; clearly the data have been written correctly, and the problem lies in the retrieval. All the trials I did earlier included strings of several thousand bytes, so it seems clear that, even if they were written correctly, they would not be retrieved. I don't know how much this explains, but it's clearly part of the problem. Looking at the tests package, all the tests write and retrieve strings of only a few bytes. It would be a good idea to include a test that writes and retrieves a value which is longer that the buffer. Hope this is helpful Peter Kenny

Sept. 7, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] [ANN] Territorial

by Esteban Lorenzano

Hi, We do not accept GPL for Pharo because is viral: it enforces GPL to âderivative workâ, and in OO, where you basically refine classes, is hard to see when your work is a separated thing and when is âa derivateâ (one could say that in smalltalk, everything you do is a derivateâ¦ a nightmare that has made possible Cincom business models). Point. Now, you are free to license your code under the license you prefer (and please, note that you can do that because WE decided to license Pharo as MIT :)â¦ but that restricts your program in two ways: 1) is not eligible for integration into Pharo. Is not even eligible for âlook at it and pick ideasâ, because is a license violation. 2) many people will run away from even look at that code, for same reasons we will not look at it (we do not want to infringe license termsâ¦ so we are basically out of any movement that can happen there). so that :) I my self have code that is not under any copyleft license (custom projects for particular clients), but that didnât avoid me to release Voyage and all the frameworks I developed while doing custom apps as MIT. Why? because I wanted a community looking at it. cheers, Esteban > On 07 Sep 2016, at 11:03, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. > > 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 <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 <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/ <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 Dimitris Chloupis

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. 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> 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 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> 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>: >> >>> 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> 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>: >>> > 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>: >>> >> 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 >>> www.feenk.com >>> >>> "If you can't say why something is relevant, >>> it probably isn't." >>> >>> >>> >> > > >

Sept. 7, 2016