[ANN] Territorial Re-Licensing
I consider GNU AGPL v3 a fair license choice which protects somehow authors. After some talks with friends today, I began to consider it useless for a niche community like Smalltalk *and* solo projects. I then read all your mails, many posts in other communities, and finally asked for advices. Conclusion: The ideal license option for me was not yet invented. Now about parasite behavior and easy living for freeloaders. - I doubt Smalltalkers are in position for doing anything valuable against parasites. GPL scares a niche community. All of us having MIT code published can be stealed and we have no legal options to defend our work/authorship. That should be addressed one day. - However, I would like one day to read people releasing software under whatever license they want and not to be pointed them. That's a matter of freedom. I feel we are far away from there. - I hope we can talk about interesting Territorial features, what do you need, what could be modeled better, etc. Licensing is boring, really. I re-licensed Territorial to MIT for the nice Pharo people, for the nice Smalltalkers, people who helped me here in mailing lists, or sending supportive private messages, and for cool users with nice intentions. Hernán PS: Updated User Manual: http://bit.ly/2c4RrCJ
Hi Hernan, Thanks for your balanced response. Licensing discussion can be boring but also crucial, hence the sometimes religious views on it. Like a lot of things, from a distance it seems easy - but the devil is in the details. Consider anyway that "Territorial" may otherwise have been a single blip in your first [ANN] post, but its now had more exposure. I hope you don't mind I follow up with one more post that has been sitting almost complete in Drafts folder a few days, after researching some interesting points. cheers -ben On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Hernán Morales Durand <hernan.morales@gmail.com> wrote:
I consider GNU AGPL v3 a fair license choice which protects somehow authors. After some talks with friends today, I began to consider it useless for a niche community like Smalltalk *and* solo projects. I then read all your mails, many posts in other communities, and finally asked for advices. Conclusion: The ideal license option for me was not yet invented.
Now about parasite behavior and easy living for freeloaders.
- I doubt Smalltalkers are in position for doing anything valuable against parasites. GPL scares a niche community. All of us having MIT code published can be stealed and we have no legal options to defend our work/authorship. That should be addressed one day.
- However, I would like one day to read people releasing software under whatever license they want and not to be pointed them. That's a matter of freedom. I feel we are far away from there.
- I hope we can talk about interesting Territorial features, what do you need, what could be modeled better, etc. Licensing is boring, really.
I re-licensed Territorial to MIT for the nice Pharo people, for the nice Smalltalkers, people who helped me here in mailing lists, or sending supportive private messages, and for cool users with nice intentions.
Hernán
PS: Updated User Manual: http://bit.ly/2c4RrCJ
You can be proud of you. I'm proud of you and I can tell you that I really understand you. I can tell you that once I was tempted to change the license of my new books because bad people could just take everything. (yes this is silly when you read but I thought about it and we even discussed it in the book mailing-list). And I changed my mind and continue to use the most liberal CC license. And I have sometimes the same doubts with Pharo code. Nothing prevents people to copy what we took ages to build. Now let us live along with that. Now what is important for our community is how we get money inside and that people can make a living. You can add yourself to the Pharo consultant list (sadly I do not think that it will get an impact but we should do it). Now what would be nice to know is what are the time you can do on other paid projects and what are the domains of expertise you have so that if we know companies they can be put in contact with you. Stef Le 8/9/16 à 06:00, Hernán Morales Durand a écrit :
I consider GNU AGPL v3 a fair license choice which protects somehow authors. After some talks with friends today, I began to consider it useless for a niche community like Smalltalk *and* solo projects. I then read all your mails, many posts in other communities, and finally asked for advices. Conclusion: The ideal license option for me was not yet invented.
Now about parasite behavior and easy living for freeloaders.
- I doubt Smalltalkers are in position for doing anything valuable against parasites. GPL scares a niche community. All of us having MIT code published can be stealed and we have no legal options to defend our work/authorship. That should be addressed one day.
- However, I would like one day to read people releasing software under whatever license they want and not to be pointed them. That's a matter of freedom. I feel we are far away from there.
- I hope we can talk about interesting Territorial features, what do you need, what could be modeled better, etc. Licensing is boring, really.
I re-licensed Territorial to MIT for the nice Pharo people, for the nice Smalltalkers, people who helped me here in mailing lists, or sending supportive private messages, and for cool users with nice intentions.
Hernán
PS: Updated User Manual: http://bit.ly/2c4RrCJ
Nice to know something good came out after taking all the heat. In my case I learn about licensing with the reasons behind and not "just take it!"... My sources of information, the main spec.st site, made my mistake about dual license a valid misinterpretation and even the idea that there are other non-viral licenses: LGPL, 3 clause BSD, public domain that can integrated in a MIT licensed project, with the rationale behind [1], seems a good thing to make explicit [1] http://etoileos.com/dev/licensing/ Kind of down though, after seeing how a community leader can go after other people who don't share his views/knowledge and is just trying to contribute, understand and be part of the community. Today would be a slow day for me in Smalltak... maybe is time to take a walk a leave it for a time. Cheers, Offray On 08/09/16 06:00, Hernán Morales Durand wrote:
I consider GNU AGPL v3 a fair license choice which protects somehow authors. After some talks with friends today, I began to consider it useless for a niche community like Smalltalk *and* solo projects. I then read all your mails, many posts in other communities, and finally asked for advices. Conclusion: The ideal license option for me was not yet invented.
Now about parasite behavior and easy living for freeloaders.
- I doubt Smalltalkers are in position for doing anything valuable against parasites. GPL scares a niche community. All of us having MIT code published can be stealed and we have no legal options to defend our work/authorship. That should be addressed one day.
- However, I would like one day to read people releasing software under whatever license they want and not to be pointed them. That's a matter of freedom. I feel we are far away from there.
- I hope we can talk about interesting Territorial features, what do you need, what could be modeled better, etc. Licensing is boring, really.
I re-licensed Territorial to MIT for the nice Pharo people, for the nice Smalltalkers, people who helped me here in mailing lists, or sending supportive private messages, and for cool users with nice intentions.
Hernán
PS: Updated User Manual: http://bit.ly/2c4RrCJ
Hi Offray, I am sorry you feel down. The wording of Stef did appear strong. However, please keep in mind that email is a terrible medium for expressing and transmitting feelings. I would kindly ask you to reconsider the emails and focus on the content and you will see that the wording was not about the external project but about the decisions that relate to the licensing of Pharo itself. As Esteban and I clarified, Pharo is MIT and will remain MIT. There is a long history of why this is so and a huge amount of effort to make it clean MIT. To keep it clean we have to be aware of the implications of another kind of a license, and our clarifications were about how we, those that work on the main Pharo code, will not touch a GPL code and that this might have a counter productive impact on the originator of the code in question (due to a lack of engagement from other people). Please also keep in mind that we do not want to prevent people from choosing their own licenses. The decision of the license belongs exclusively to the creators of the code. We are only looking for the interests of the core of Pharo to make sure that you will continue to have whatever options you choose on top of it. And you will always be free to choose what you want for your projects. Just a note about other licenses you mentioned: in the context of Pharo, LGPL has the same effect as GPL given that there is no concept of binary reusability in our system. So, for that purpose, we also do not touch LGPL. A final point: when someone says that "we decided something a long time agoâ, it is easy to take it as a âthis is it, just take itâ, but that would be a bit unfair. A more fair alternative is to understand that time is scarce and sometimes we just do not have the available energy to provide all clarifications on demand right at that point. Please letâs focus on building things together, even if there are misunderstandings or seaming differences in opinion. We need everyoneâs energy. Cheers, Doru
On Sep 8, 2016, at 9:53 AM, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas <offray.luna@mutabit.com> wrote:
Nice to know something good came out after taking all the heat. In my case I learn about licensing with the reasons behind and not "just take it!"... My sources of information, the main spec.st site, made my mistake about dual license a valid misinterpretation and even the idea that there are other non-viral licenses: LGPL, 3 clause BSD, public domain that can integrated in a MIT licensed project, with the rationale behind [1], seems a good thing to make explicit [1] http://etoileos.com/dev/licensing/ Kind of down though, after seeing how a community leader can go after other people who don't share his views/knowledge and is just trying to contribute, understand and be part of the community. Today would be a slow day for me in Smalltak... maybe is time to take a walk a leave it for a time.
Cheers,
Offray
On 08/09/16 06:00, Hernán Morales Durand wrote:
I consider GNU AGPL v3 a fair license choice which protects somehow authors. After some talks with friends today, I began to consider it useless for a niche community like Smalltalk *and* solo projects. I then read all your mails, many posts in other communities, and finally asked for advices. Conclusion: The ideal license option for me was not yet invented.
Now about parasite behavior and easy living for freeloaders.
- I doubt Smalltalkers are in position for doing anything valuable against parasites. GPL scares a niche community. All of us having MIT code published can be stealed and we have no legal options to defend our work/authorship. That should be addressed one day.
- However, I would like one day to read people releasing software under whatever license they want and not to be pointed them. That's a matter of freedom. I feel we are far away from there.
- I hope we can talk about interesting Territorial features, what do you need, what could be modeled better, etc. Licensing is boring, really.
I re-licensed Territorial to MIT for the nice Pharo people, for the nice Smalltalkers, people who helped me here in mailing lists, or sending supportive private messages, and for cool users with nice intentions.
Hernán
PS: Updated User Manual: http://bit.ly/2c4RrCJ
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "Next time you see your life passing by, say 'hi' and get to know her."
Hi Tudor, I recognize the impedance with mail as an expression medium and most of the time it was like you said, except when Stef addressed to me with "It is amazing how you like talking" (is this some kind of invitation to "just shut up!"? Is that a "remainder" I have not written enough code to have a valid voice here?). For me, if someone has no the time for a detailed response, going with: "GPL is a plague", "You can argue I don't care" or "Pharo is MIT. Period.", or fighting the person instead of fighting the argument, makes more harm that good. No clarification, because lack of energy or time, seems better that these alternative "clarifications". Not all the people is trying to start a holy war anytime makes a suggestion or shows a different position. Sometimes we're just trying to contribute and understand, even when we come from different places, interests and life paths. Thanks for pointing the LGPL issue (so, 3 BSD, MIT, public domain are a good fit). At least I made my contribution by pointing the Etoile place where there is a *rationale* behind a license choosing that makes this licensing issues clearer for newcomers. Energy is low today, but putting things in perspective, most of the time community is welcoming, even if particular interactions among people are not. Cheers, Offray On 08/09/16 11:40, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi Offray,
I am sorry you feel down.
The wording of Stef did appear strong. However, please keep in mind that email is a terrible medium for expressing and transmitting feelings. I would kindly ask you to reconsider the emails and focus on the content and you will see that the wording was not about the external project but about the decisions that relate to the licensing of Pharo itself. As Esteban and I clarified, Pharo is MIT and will remain MIT. There is a long history of why this is so and a huge amount of effort to make it clean MIT. To keep it clean we have to be aware of the implications of another kind of a license, and our clarifications were about how we, those that work on the main Pharo code, will not touch a GPL code and that this might have a counter productive impact on the originator of the code in question (due to a lack of engagement from other people).
Please also keep in mind that we do not want to prevent people from choosing their own licenses. The decision of the license belongs exclusively to the creators of the code. We are only looking for the interests of the core of Pharo to make sure that you will continue to have whatever options you choose on top of it. And you will always be free to choose what you want for your projects.
Just a note about other licenses you mentioned: in the context of Pharo, LGPL has the same effect as GPL given that there is no concept of binary reusability in our system. So, for that purpose, we also do not touch LGPL.
A final point: when someone says that "we decided something a long time agoâ, it is easy to take it as a âthis is it, just take itâ, but that would be a bit unfair. A more fair alternative is to understand that time is scarce and sometimes we just do not have the available energy to provide all clarifications on demand right at that point.
Please letâs focus on building things together, even if there are misunderstandings or seaming differences in opinion. We need everyoneâs energy.
Cheers, Doru
On Sep 8, 2016, at 9:53 AM, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas <offray.luna@mutabit.com> wrote:
Nice to know something good came out after taking all the heat. In my case I learn about licensing with the reasons behind and not "just take it!"... My sources of information, the main spec.st site, made my mistake about dual license a valid misinterpretation and even the idea that there are other non-viral licenses: LGPL, 3 clause BSD, public domain that can integrated in a MIT licensed project, with the rationale behind [1], seems a good thing to make explicit [1] http://etoileos.com/dev/licensing/ Kind of down though, after seeing how a community leader can go after other people who don't share his views/knowledge and is just trying to contribute, understand and be part of the community. Today would be a slow day for me in Smalltak... maybe is time to take a walk a leave it for a time.
Cheers,
Offray
On 08/09/16 06:00, Hernán Morales Durand wrote:
I consider GNU AGPL v3 a fair license choice which protects somehow authors. After some talks with friends today, I began to consider it useless for a niche community like Smalltalk *and* solo projects. I then read all your mails, many posts in other communities, and finally asked for advices. Conclusion: The ideal license option for me was not yet invented.
Now about parasite behavior and easy living for freeloaders.
- I doubt Smalltalkers are in position for doing anything valuable against parasites. GPL scares a niche community. All of us having MIT code published can be stealed and we have no legal options to defend our work/authorship. That should be addressed one day.
- However, I would like one day to read people releasing software under whatever license they want and not to be pointed them. That's a matter of freedom. I feel we are far away from there.
- I hope we can talk about interesting Territorial features, what do you need, what could be modeled better, etc. Licensing is boring, really.
I re-licensed Territorial to MIT for the nice Pharo people, for the nice Smalltalkers, people who helped me here in mailing lists, or sending supportive private messages, and for cool users with nice intentions.
Hernán
PS: Updated User Manual: http://bit.ly/2c4RrCJ
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"Next time you see your life passing by, say 'hi' and get to know her."
well he did apologize And these things do happen in all communities, I cannot begin to describe the poison I have received in the #common-lisp irc channel. One time also in their mailing list , some old member got annoyed for small reason with a begineer and he gave him code to delete his hard drive, fortunately other members replied immediately after warning the beginner not to execute the code. License wise MIT/BSD are by far the top most popular license , they got so popular that FSF was forced to release LGPL to compete with them but at the same time not upsetting too much their GPL supporters. So as you can see Pharo is no exception, its actually the rule. Also other licenses are very close to MIT/BSD making MIT almost a monopoly on open source software. Don't believe me ? Here are the top trending github repos that contain a code license ( creative commons applies not to code but mainly to assets, music, sound, text, graphics, fonts, etc) https://github.com/facebook/zstd https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow https://github.com/vuejs/vue https://github.com/camwiegert/in-view https://github.com/nasa/openmct https://github.com/baidu/Paddle https://github.com/facebookresearch/fastText https://github.com/david-gpu/srez https://github.com/quilljs/quill https://github.com/shekhargulati/52-technologies-in-2016 Mostly they are MIT , others are MIT like licenses like Apache and BSD, only one is a custom made one still similar to MIT. None GPL not even LGPL. https://github.com/trending?since=monthly Actually you can continued down the list and I am sure will take you even more time to find a GPL or even LGPL licensed open source project. On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 1:23 PM Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas < offray.luna@mutabit.com> wrote:
Hi Tudor,
I recognize the impedance with mail as an expression medium and most of the time it was like you said, except when Stef addressed to me with "It is amazing how you like talking" (is this some kind of invitation to "just shut up!"? Is that a "remainder" I have not written enough code to have a valid voice here?).
For me, if someone has no the time for a detailed response, going with: "GPL is a plague", "You can argue I don't care" or "Pharo is MIT. Period.", or fighting the person instead of fighting the argument, makes more harm that good. No clarification, because lack of energy or time, seems better that these alternative "clarifications". Not all the people is trying to start a holy war anytime makes a suggestion or shows a different position. Sometimes we're just trying to contribute and understand, even when we come from different places, interests and life paths.
Thanks for pointing the LGPL issue (so, 3 BSD, MIT, public domain are a good fit). At least I made my contribution by pointing the Etoile place where there is a *rationale* behind a license choosing that makes this licensing issues clearer for newcomers.
Energy is low today, but putting things in perspective, most of the time community is welcoming, even if particular interactions among people are not.
Cheers,
Offray
On 08/09/16 11:40, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi Offray,
I am sorry you feel down.
The wording of Stef did appear strong. However, please keep in mind that email is a terrible medium for expressing and transmitting feelings. I would kindly ask you to reconsider the emails and focus on the content and you will see that the wording was not about the external project but about the decisions that relate to the licensing of Pharo itself. As Esteban and I clarified, Pharo is MIT and will remain MIT. There is a long history of why this is so and a huge amount of effort to make it clean MIT. To keep it clean we have to be aware of the implications of another kind of a license, and our clarifications were about how we, those that work on the main Pharo code, will not touch a GPL code and that this might have a counter productive impact on the originator of the code in question (due to a lack of engagement from other people).
Please also keep in mind that we do not want to prevent people from choosing their own licenses. The decision of the license belongs exclusively to the creators of the code. We are only looking for the interests of the core of Pharo to make sure that you will continue to have whatever options you choose on top of it. And you will always be free to choose what you want for your projects.
Just a note about other licenses you mentioned: in the context of Pharo, LGPL has the same effect as GPL given that there is no concept of binary reusability in our system. So, for that purpose, we also do not touch LGPL.
A final point: when someone says that "we decided something a long time agoâ, it is easy to take it as a âthis is it, just take itâ, but that would be a bit unfair. A more fair alternative is to understand that time is scarce and sometimes we just do not have the available energy to provide all clarifications on demand right at that point.
Please letâs focus on building things together, even if there are misunderstandings or seaming differences in opinion. We need everyoneâs energy.
Cheers, Doru
On Sep 8, 2016, at 9:53 AM, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas < offray.luna@mutabit.com> wrote:
Nice to know something good came out after taking all the heat. In my case I learn about licensing with the reasons behind and not "just take it!"... My sources of information, the main spec.st site, made my mistake about dual license a valid misinterpretation and even the idea that there are other non-viral licenses: LGPL, 3 clause BSD, public domain that can integrated in a MIT licensed project, with the rationale behind [1], seems a good thing to make explicit [1] http://etoileos.com/dev/licensing/ Kind of down though, after seeing how a community leader can go after other people who don't share his views/knowledge and is just trying to contribute, understand and be part of the community. Today would be a slow day for me in Smalltak... maybe is time to take a walk a leave it for a time.
Cheers,
Offray
On 08/09/16 06:00, Hernán Morales Durand wrote:
I consider GNU AGPL v3 a fair license choice which protects somehow authors. After some talks with friends today, I began to consider it useless for a niche community like Smalltalk *and* solo projects. I then read all your mails, many posts in other communities, and finally asked for advices. Conclusion: The ideal license option for me was not yet invented.
Now about parasite behavior and easy living for freeloaders.
- I doubt Smalltalkers are in position for doing anything valuable against parasites. GPL scares a niche community. All of us having MIT code published can be stealed and we have no legal options to defend our work/authorship. That should be addressed one day.
- However, I would like one day to read people releasing software under whatever license they want and not to be pointed them. That's a matter of freedom. I feel we are far away from there.
- I hope we can talk about interesting Territorial features, what do you need, what could be modeled better, etc. Licensing is boring, really.
I re-licensed Territorial to MIT for the nice Pharo people, for the nice Smalltalkers, people who helped me here in mailing lists, or sending supportive private messages, and for cool users with nice intentions.
Hernán
PS: Updated User Manual: http://bit.ly/2c4RrCJ
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"Next time you see your life passing by, say 'hi' and get to know her."
Please let's move on. My motivation was trying to see the logic behind licenses in Pharo (not on popularity of GPL vs MIT), raised by a valid concern on free riding, enclosure of the commons and reciprocity, which is a hot topic with a lot of debate in free culture/knowledge communities. I learned about why MIT an alike are better in the context of image based systems, Territorial was relicensed. Some people apologized and some others went "+1". On personal attacks and rant reactions, I think that, as a community, we can also learn from that a try to minimize them. It was another day in the community. With that cleared, let's move. Cheers, Offray On 08/09/16 14:17, Dimitris Chloupis wrote:
well he did apologize
And these things do happen in all communities, I cannot begin to describe the poison I have received in the #common-lisp irc channel. One time also in their mailing list , some old member got annoyed for small reason with a begineer and he gave him code to delete his hard drive, fortunately other members replied immediately after warning the beginner not to execute the code.
License wise MIT/BSD are by far the top most popular license , they got so popular that FSF was forced to release LGPL to compete with them but at the same time not upsetting too much their GPL supporters.
So as you can see Pharo is no exception, its actually the rule. Also other licenses are very close to MIT/BSD making MIT almost a monopoly on open source software.
Don't believe me ? Here are the top trending github repos that contain a code license ( creative commons applies not to code but mainly to assets, music, sound, text, graphics, fonts, etc)
https://github.com/facebook/zstd https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow https://github.com/vuejs/vue https://github.com/camwiegert/in-view https://github.com/nasa/openmct https://github.com/baidu/Paddle https://github.com/facebookresearch/fastText https://github.com/david-gpu/srez https://github.com/quilljs/quill https://github.com/shekhargulati/52-technologies-in-2016
Mostly they are MIT , others are MIT like licenses like Apache and BSD, only one is a custom made one still similar to MIT. None GPL not even LGPL.
https://github.com/trending?since=monthly
Actually you can continued down the list and I am sure will take you even more time to find a GPL or even LGPL licensed open source project.
On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 1:23 PM Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas <offray.luna@mutabit.com <mailto:offray.luna@mutabit.com>> wrote:
Hi Tudor,
I recognize the impedance with mail as an expression medium and most of the time it was like you said, except when Stef addressed to me with "It is amazing how you like talking" (is this some kind of invitation to "just shut up!"? Is that a "remainder" I have not written enough code to have a valid voice here?).
For me, if someone has no the time for a detailed response, going with: "GPL is a plague", "You can argue I don't care" or "Pharo is MIT. Period.", or fighting the person instead of fighting the argument, makes more harm that good. No clarification, because lack of energy or time, seems better that these alternative "clarifications". Not all the people is trying to start a holy war anytime makes a suggestion or shows a different position. Sometimes we're just trying to contribute and understand, even when we come from different places, interests and life paths.
Thanks for pointing the LGPL issue (so, 3 BSD, MIT, public domain are a good fit). At least I made my contribution by pointing the Etoile place where there is a *rationale* behind a license choosing that makes this licensing issues clearer for newcomers.
Energy is low today, but putting things in perspective, most of the time community is welcoming, even if particular interactions among people are not.
Cheers,
Offray
On 08/09/16 11:40, Tudor Girba wrote: > Hi Offray, > > I am sorry you feel down. > > The wording of Stef did appear strong. However, please keep in mind that email is a terrible medium for expressing and transmitting feelings. I would kindly ask you to reconsider the emails and focus on the content and you will see that the wording was not about the external project but about the decisions that relate to the licensing of Pharo itself. As Esteban and I clarified, Pharo is MIT and will remain MIT. There is a long history of why this is so and a huge amount of effort to make it clean MIT. To keep it clean we have to be aware of the implications of another kind of a license, and our clarifications were about how we, those that work on the main Pharo code, will not touch a GPL code and that this might have a counter productive impact on the originator of the code in question (due to a lack of engagement from other people). > > Please also keep in mind that we do not want to prevent people from choosing their own licenses. The decision of the license belongs exclusively to the creators of the code. We are only looking for the interests of the core of Pharo to make sure that you will continue to have whatever options you choose on top of it. And you will always be free to choose what you want for your projects. > > Just a note about other licenses you mentioned: in the context of Pharo, LGPL has the same effect as GPL given that there is no concept of binary reusability in our system. So, for that purpose, we also do not touch LGPL. > > A final point: when someone says that "we decided something a long time agoâ, it is easy to take it as a âthis is it, just take itâ, but that would be a bit unfair. A more fair alternative is to understand that time is scarce and sometimes we just do not have the available energy to provide all clarifications on demand right at that point. > > Please letâs focus on building things together, even if there are misunderstandings or seaming differences in opinion. We need everyoneâs energy. > > Cheers, > Doru > > >> On Sep 8, 2016, at 9:53 AM, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas <offray.luna@mutabit.com <mailto:offray.luna@mutabit.com>> wrote: >> >> Nice to know something good came out after taking all the heat. In my case I learn about licensing with the reasons behind and not "just take it!"... >> My sources of information, the main spec.st <http://spec.st> site, made my mistake about dual license a valid misinterpretation and even the idea that there are other non-viral licenses: LGPL, 3 clause BSD, public domain that can integrated in a MIT licensed project, with the rationale behind [1], seems a good thing to make explicit >> [1] http://etoileos.com/dev/licensing/ >> Kind of down though, after seeing how a community leader can go after other people who don't share his views/knowledge and is just trying to contribute, understand and be part of the community. Today would be a slow day for me in Smalltak... maybe is time to take a walk a leave it for a time. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Offray >> >> On 08/09/16 06:00, Hernán Morales Durand wrote: >>> I consider GNU AGPL v3 a fair license choice which protects somehow authors. After some talks with friends today, I began to consider it useless for a niche community like Smalltalk *and* solo projects. I then read all your mails, many posts in other communities, and finally asked for advices. Conclusion: The ideal license option for me was not yet invented. >>> >>> Now about parasite behavior and easy living for freeloaders. >>> >>> - I doubt Smalltalkers are in position for doing anything valuable against parasites. GPL scares a niche community. All of us having MIT code published can be stealed and we have no legal options to defend our work/authorship. That should be addressed one day. >>> >>> - However, I would like one day to read people releasing software under whatever license they want and not to be pointed them. That's a matter of freedom. I feel we are far away from there. >>> >>> - I hope we can talk about interesting Territorial features, what do you need, what could be modeled better, etc. Licensing is boring, really. >>> >>> I re-licensed Territorial to MIT for the nice Pharo people, for the nice Smalltalkers, people who helped me here in mailing lists, or sending supportive private messages, and for cool users with nice intentions. >>> >>> Hernán >>> >>> PS: Updated User Manual: http://bit.ly/2c4RrCJ >>> >>> >>> > -- > www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com> > www.feenk.com <http://www.feenk.com> > > "Next time you see your life passing by, say 'hi' and get to know her." > > > > > >
Well did he? All I saw was an attempt to justify what he had said, in terms of the difficult history etc. Forceful argument is fine, but a personal attack like the one Offray quoted is unforgiveable. It could be put to bed if Stef would just say âsorryâ for that. But Iâm not holding my breath. Peter Kenny From: Pharo-users [mailto:pharo-users-bounces@lists.pharo.org] On Behalf Of Dimitris Chloupis Sent: 08 September 2016 13:18 To: Any question about pharo is welcome <pharo-users@lists.pharo.org> Subject: Re: [Pharo-users] [ANN] Territorial Re-Licensing well he did apologize
Yes he did after my reply "So sorry to be rude but I'm ***REALLY*** busy. Much more than you can imagine. Even more. And I feel responsible. " So let us move on :) On Thu, 8 Sep 2016 at 16:19, PBKResearch <peter@pbkresearch.co.uk> wrote:
Well did he? All I saw was an attempt to justify what he had said, in terms of the difficult history etc. Forceful argument is fine, but a personal attack like the one Offray quoted is unforgiveable. It could be put to bed if Stef would just say âsorryâ for that. But Iâm not holding my breath.
Peter Kenny
*From:* Pharo-users [mailto:pharo-users-bounces@lists.pharo.org] *On Behalf Of *Dimitris Chloupis *Sent:* 08 September 2016 13:18 *To:* Any question about pharo is welcome <pharo-users@lists.pharo.org> *Subject:* Re: [Pharo-users] [ANN] Territorial Re-Licensing
well he did apologize
Hi Offray Ad hominem comments never help. But we all make mistakes, we are not experts in Argumentation Theory, but I think we are learning from every discussion. Licensing has black void holes. I would prefer to read "GPL could result in lower feedback for your projects, because community size is really small compared to other OSS projects" and other factors. Or even better, we can try to build something from the discussion, like a licensing chapter with key points. Hernán 2016-09-08 7:22 GMT-03:00 Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas < offray.luna@mutabit.com>:
Hi Tudor,
I recognize the impedance with mail as an expression medium and most of the time it was like you said, except when Stef addressed to me with "It is amazing how you like talking" (is this some kind of invitation to "just shut up!"? Is that a "remainder" I have not written enough code to have a valid voice here?).
For me, if someone has no the time for a detailed response, going with: "GPL is a plague", "You can argue I don't care" or "Pharo is MIT. Period.", or fighting the person instead of fighting the argument, makes more harm that good. No clarification, because lack of energy or time, seems better that these alternative "clarifications". Not all the people is trying to start a holy war anytime makes a suggestion or shows a different position. Sometimes we're just trying to contribute and understand, even when we come from different places, interests and life paths.
Thanks for pointing the LGPL issue (so, 3 BSD, MIT, public domain are a good fit). At least I made my contribution by pointing the Etoile place where there is a *rationale* behind a license choosing that makes this licensing issues clearer for newcomers.
Energy is low today, but putting things in perspective, most of the time community is welcoming, even if particular interactions among people are not.
Cheers,
Offray
On 08/09/16 11:40, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi Offray,
I am sorry you feel down.
The wording of Stef did appear strong. However, please keep in mind that email is a terrible medium for expressing and transmitting feelings. I would kindly ask you to reconsider the emails and focus on the content and you will see that the wording was not about the external project but about the decisions that relate to the licensing of Pharo itself. As Esteban and I clarified, Pharo is MIT and will remain MIT. There is a long history of why this is so and a huge amount of effort to make it clean MIT. To keep it clean we have to be aware of the implications of another kind of a license, and our clarifications were about how we, those that work on the main Pharo code, will not touch a GPL code and that this might have a counter productive impact on the originator of the code in question (due to a lack of engagement from other people).
Please also keep in mind that we do not want to prevent people from choosing their own licenses. The decision of the license belongs exclusively to the creators of the code. We are only looking for the interests of the core of Pharo to make sure that you will continue to have whatever options you choose on top of it. And you will always be free to choose what you want for your projects.
Just a note about other licenses you mentioned: in the context of Pharo, LGPL has the same effect as GPL given that there is no concept of binary reusability in our system. So, for that purpose, we also do not touch LGPL.
A final point: when someone says that "we decided something a long time agoâ, it is easy to take it as a âthis is it, just take itâ, but that would be a bit unfair. A more fair alternative is to understand that time is scarce and sometimes we just do not have the available energy to provide all clarifications on demand right at that point.
Please letâs focus on building things together, even if there are misunderstandings or seaming differences in opinion. We need everyoneâs energy.
Cheers, Doru
On Sep 8, 2016, at 9:53 AM, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas <
offray.luna@mutabit.com> wrote:
Nice to know something good came out after taking all the heat. In my case I learn about licensing with the reasons behind and not "just take it!"... My sources of information, the main spec.st site, made my mistake about dual license a valid misinterpretation and even the idea that there are other non-viral licenses: LGPL, 3 clause BSD, public domain that can integrated in a MIT licensed project, with the rationale behind [1], seems a good thing to make explicit [1] http://etoileos.com/dev/licensing/ Kind of down though, after seeing how a community leader can go after other people who don't share his views/knowledge and is just trying to contribute, understand and be part of the community. Today would be a slow day for me in Smalltak... maybe is time to take a walk a leave it for a time.
Cheers,
Offray
On 08/09/16 06:00, Hernán Morales Durand wrote:
I consider GNU AGPL v3 a fair license choice which protects somehow authors. After some talks with friends today, I began to consider it useless for a niche community like Smalltalk *and* solo projects. I then read all your mails, many posts in other communities, and finally asked for advices. Conclusion: The ideal license option for me was not yet invented.
Now about parasite behavior and easy living for freeloaders.
- I doubt Smalltalkers are in position for doing anything valuable against parasites. GPL scares a niche community. All of us having MIT code published can be stealed and we have no legal options to defend our work/authorship. That should be addressed one day.
- However, I would like one day to read people releasing software under whatever license they want and not to be pointed them. That's a matter of freedom. I feel we are far away from there.
- I hope we can talk about interesting Territorial features, what do you need, what could be modeled better, etc. Licensing is boring, really.
I re-licensed Territorial to MIT for the nice Pharo people, for the nice Smalltalkers, people who helped me here in mailing lists, or sending supportive private messages, and for cool users with nice intentions.
Hernán
PS: Updated User Manual: http://bit.ly/2c4RrCJ
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"Next time you see your life passing by, say 'hi' and get to know her."
Dory, can your mail be put on the Pharo web page, the contributions part? It seems that with a bit of polishing it would fit in well there, and this way future discussions can point to that page. -- Does this mail seem too brief? Sorry for that, I donât mean to be rude! Please see http://emailcharter.org . Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry PLEIAD and RyCh labs - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile
On Sep 8, 2016, at 06:40, Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com> wrote:
Hi Offray,
I am sorry you feel down.
The wording of Stef did appear strong. However, please keep in mind that email is a terrible medium for expressing and transmitting feelings. I would kindly ask you to reconsider the emails and focus on the content and you will see that the wording was not about the external project but about the decisions that relate to the licensing of Pharo itself. As Esteban and I clarified, Pharo is MIT and will remain MIT. There is a long history of why this is so and a huge amount of effort to make it clean MIT. To keep it clean we have to be aware of the implications of another kind of a license, and our clarifications were about how we, those that work on the main Pharo code, will not touch a GPL code and that this might have a counter productive impact on the originator of the code in question (due to a lack of engagement from other people).
Please also keep in mind that we do not want to prevent people from choosing their own licenses. The decision of the license belongs exclusively to the creators of the code. We are only looking for the interests of the core of Pharo to make sure that you will continue to have whatever options you choose on top of it. And you will always be free to choose what you want for your projects.
Just a note about other licenses you mentioned: in the context of Pharo, LGPL has the same effect as GPL given that there is no concept of binary reusability in our system. So, for that purpose, we also do not touch LGPL.
A final point: when someone says that "we decided something a long time agoâ, it is easy to take it as a âthis is it, just take itâ, but that would be a bit unfair. A more fair alternative is to understand that time is scarce and sometimes we just do not have the available energy to provide all clarifications on demand right at that point.
Please letâs focus on building things together, even if there are misunderstandings or seaming differences in opinion. We need everyoneâs energy.
Cheers, Doru
On Sep 8, 2016, at 9:53 AM, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas <offray.luna@mutabit.com> wrote:
Nice to know something good came out after taking all the heat. In my case I learn about licensing with the reasons behind and not "just take it!"... My sources of information, the main spec.st site, made my mistake about dual license a valid misinterpretation and even the idea that there are other non-viral licenses: LGPL, 3 clause BSD, public domain that can integrated in a MIT licensed project, with the rationale behind [1], seems a good thing to make explicit [1] http://etoileos.com/dev/licensing/ Kind of down though, after seeing how a community leader can go after other people who don't share his views/knowledge and is just trying to contribute, understand and be part of the community. Today would be a slow day for me in Smalltak... maybe is time to take a walk a leave it for a time.
Cheers,
Offray
On 08/09/16 06:00, Hernán Morales Durand wrote:
I consider GNU AGPL v3 a fair license choice which protects somehow authors. After some talks with friends today, I began to consider it useless for a niche community like Smalltalk *and* solo projects. I then read all your mails, many posts in other communities, and finally asked for advices. Conclusion: The ideal license option for me was not yet invented.
Now about parasite behavior and easy living for freeloaders.
- I doubt Smalltalkers are in position for doing anything valuable against parasites. GPL scares a niche community. All of us having MIT code published can be stealed and we have no legal options to defend our work/authorship. That should be addressed one day.
- However, I would like one day to read people releasing software under whatever license they want and not to be pointed them. That's a matter of freedom. I feel we are far away from there.
- I hope we can talk about interesting Territorial features, what do you need, what could be modeled better, etc. Licensing is boring, really.
I re-licensed Territorial to MIT for the nice Pharo people, for the nice Smalltalkers, people who helped me here in mailing lists, or sending supportive private messages, and for cool users with nice intentions.
Hernán
PS: Updated User Manual: http://bit.ly/2c4RrCJ
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"Next time you see your life passing by, say 'hi' and get to know her."
participants (8)
-
Ben Coman -
Dimitris Chloupis -
Hernán Morales Durand -
Johan Fabry -
Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas -
PBKResearch -
stepharo -
Tudor Girba