- Pharo-users - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-users] [ANN] Territorial

by Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas

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. 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/ 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 Tudor Girba

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 Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas

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

Sept. 7, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] [ANN] Territorial

by stepharo

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 <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 stepharo

I'm sorry to say it but you will just end up feeling alone. I wish that someone will ask you to have a non GPL license but I have serious doubts that it will happen. If it does not happen remember that it is not the fault of the communaute. Now if you are looking for extra paid jobs to do let us know. We won the battle of the license after years with the SqueakL and can tell you that GPL is a BIG sign for me to say: the software does not exist. This is not by accident that we picekd up MIT and yes you can take Pharo and Moose and make the money you can with it. Stef > 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/ > <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 Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas

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. 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). 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, 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. 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 <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 Tudor Girba

Exactly! Now try this: - While inspecting, go the Meta tab. - Select a method, and start writing the method that extends the inspector, like the method I gave you. - Save and the inspector is updated. This experience is still clumsy, but the idea here is that you can extend the inspector during the inspection process. Cheers, Doru > On Sep 6, 2016, at 11:48 PM, HernÃ¡n Morales Durand <hernan.morales(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Cool, now I see it. > I added a package called GT-TerritorialExtensions where I will experiment with different extensions. > Thank you. > > HernÃ¡n > > > 2016-09-06 10:24 GMT-03:00 Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>: > Hi Hernan, > > I read quickly through the doc. Nice work! I noticed that you used the GTInspector (even with multiple panes at a time). That was a nice surprise :). On this occasion I noticed that you could probably extend the inspector with a couple of dedicated views. For example, on page 35, the AmbiguousCity could present the Cities in a dedicated presentation in the same pane. For example, something like: > > gtInspectorCitiesIn: composite > <gtInspectorPresentationOrder: 40> > composite list > title: âCitiesâ; > display: [ cities ]; > when: [ cities notEmpty ] > > > Thanks for the clarification about the license. I did not see it either in the manual but that must have been because I schemed fast through it. > > A note for others: AGPL is different than MIT (the typical license for Pharo projects) in that it requires a user to open source any software that uses the AGPL package in some form. There is nothing wrong with it, but you should be aware of the implications. > > Cheers, > Doru > > > > > > On Sep 6, 2016, at 11:40 AM, HernÃ¡n Morales Durand <hernan.morales(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > âLive like you mean it." > > > > <Inspector on a TerritorialAmbiguousCity ((null)) .png> -- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "Reasonable is what we are accustomed with."

Sept. 7, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] [ANN] Territorial

by phil＠highoctane.be

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

Re: [Pharo-users] [ANN] Territorial

by HernÃ¡n Morales Durand

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. 6, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] [ANN] Territorial

by HernÃ¡n Morales Durand

Cool, now I see it. I added a package called GT-TerritorialExtensions where I will experiment with different extensions. Thank you. HernÃ¡n 2016-09-06 10:24 GMT-03:00 Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>: > Hi Hernan, > > I read quickly through the doc. Nice work! I noticed that you used the > GTInspector (even with multiple panes at a time). That was a nice surprise > :). On this occasion I noticed that you could probably extend the inspector > with a couple of dedicated views. For example, on page 35, the > AmbiguousCity could present the Cities in a dedicated presentation in the > same pane. For example, something like: > > gtInspectorCitiesIn: composite > <gtInspectorPresentationOrder: 40> > composite list > title: âCitiesâ; > display: [ cities ]; > when: [ cities notEmpty ] > > > Thanks for the clarification about the license. I did not see it either in > the manual but that must have been because I schemed fast through it. > > A note for others: AGPL is different than MIT (the typical license for > Pharo projects) in that it requires a user to open source any software that > uses the AGPL package in some form. There is nothing wrong with it, but you > should be aware of the implications. > > Cheers, > Doru > > > > > > On Sep 6, 2016, at 11:40 AM, HernÃ¡n Morales Durand < > hernan.morales(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > âLive like you mean it." > > >

Sept. 6, 2016