On 9/6/16, Stephan Eggermont <stephan@stack.nl> wrote:

On 06/09/16 06:24, Hernán 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

- https://github.com/hernanmd/Territorial - documentation includes as well a license at the end.

Stephan

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: ‘Cities’; 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, Hernán Morales Durand <hernan.morales@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Stephan,

2016-09-06 2:52 GMT-03:00 Stephan Eggermont <stephan@stack.nl>: On 06/09/16 06:24, Hernán 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,

Hernán

Stephan

-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com “Live like you mean it."

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, Hernán Morales Durand <hernan.morales@gmail.com> wrote:

Cool, now I see it. I added a package called GT-TerritorialExtensions where I will experiment with different extensions. Thank you.

Hernán

2016-09-06 10:24 GMT-03:00 Tudor Girba <tudor@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: ‘Cities’; 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, Hernán Morales Durand <hernan.morales@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Stephan,

2016-09-06 2:52 GMT-03:00 Stephan Eggermont <stephan@stack.nl>: On 06/09/16 06:24, Hernán 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,

Hernán

Stephan

-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com

“Live like you mean it."

<Inspector on a TerritorialAmbiguousCity ((null)) .png>

-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "Reasonable is what we are accustomed with."

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) Hernán 2016-09-06 16:47 GMT-03:00 stepharo <stepharo@free.fr>:

Hi hernan

why do you picked AGPL? We try to protect our community against license hell.

Stef Le 6/9/16 à 11:40, Hernán Morales Durand a écrit :

Hi Stephan,

2016-09-06 2:52 GMT-03:00 Stephan Eggermont <stephan@stack.nl>:

...

On 06/09/16 06:24, Hernán 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,

Hernán

...

Stephan

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. Hernán [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@tudorgirba.com>:

Hi Hernán,

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, Hernán Morales Durand < 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)

Hernán

2016-09-06 16:47 GMT-03:00 stepharo <stepharo@free.fr>: Hi hernan

why do you picked AGPL? We try to protect our community against license hell. Stef Le 6/9/16 à 11:40, Hernán Morales Durand a écrit :

...

Hi Stephan,

2016-09-06 2:52 GMT-03:00 Stephan Eggermont <stephan@stack.nl>: On 06/09/16 06:24, Hernán 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,

Hernán

Stephan

-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com

"If you can't say why something is relevant, it probably isn't."

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 Hernán, Offray On 07/09/16 06:48, 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, Hernán Morales Durand <hernan.morales@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.

Hernán

[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@tudorgirba.com <mailto:tudor@tudorgirba.com>>:

Hi Hernán,

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, Hernán Morales Durand <hernan.morales@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) > > Hernán > > > 2016-09-06 16:47 GMT-03:00 stepharo <stepharo@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 à 11:40, Hernán Morales Durand a écrit : >> >> Hi Stephan, >> >> 2016-09-06 2:52 GMT-03:00 Stephan Eggermont <stephan@stack.nl <mailto:stephan@stack.nl>>: >> On 06/09/16 06:24, Hernán 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, >> >> Hernán >> >> 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."

Hi, On 07/09/16 09:26, stepharo wrote:

Le 7/9/16 à 08:53, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas a écrit :

...

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

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 Hernán 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, Hernán, 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 Cárdenas <offray.luna@mutabit.com> wrote:

Hi,

On 07/09/16 09:26, stepharo wrote:

...

Le 7/9/16 à 08:53, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas a écrit :

...

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."

...

...

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

Le 7/9/16 à 13:58, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas a écrit :

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

+1 but as everything we do, it has some impact :)

Hi,

Please let me stress this: you can put the license of your choice to your code. Is your right and we ensured it continues being your right by choosing MIT license for Pharo. That means that all frameworks, apps, etc. that runs on Pharo has to be MIT? No! YOU CAN DECIDE.

But then, if it is not MIT, your code will not be considered for inclusion, just that (but many times you do not have that in mind, so who cares). In my own case, if is not MIT (or some permissive license like BSD, Apache, etc.) I will not even look inside it… why? because I do not want to be “infected”: I do not want to have the risk of copying (even innocently) some copyrighted ideas. You do not know the mess that was rewrite entire parts of Pharo to be able to release it… So, in the case of contributions to Pharo, yes… is “our way” (which is not a personal statement, is how this community choose to work).

Anyway… of course you can always put the license you want to your code (and that applies to Territorial too).

cheers, Esteban

ps: and please forgive Stef for being harsh on this… the Spec affaire was painful for us, we do not like to put lawyers and that kind of thing in play…

...

On 07 Sep 2016, at 14:08, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:

Le 7/9/16 à 13:58, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas a écrit :

...

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

Ironically enough "this is our way , take it or leave it" would not work for Pharo because its smalltalk and basically smalltalk by architecture allow you to deeply modify the system from the get go. This make Pharo technically impossible to control from a dictator and committee point of view like lets say Python or Linux. CPython is a single implementation , but with pharo every pharo app is essentially a new pharo implementation. The moment you modify or extend the pharo image you make a new pharo implementation. I don't like the tone Stef is expressing , he is quite rude and definitely does not represent the tone of the community which far more open to dialogue but he is correct , GPL would never have worked for Pharo. Actually I dont think I have seen a language that is fairly popular under a GPL license. There is of course software under GPL which is sucessful commercially, Blender is an example, but GPL does not cover 3d assets, music and sound. In that case you use another kind of license like creative commons or heavily modify GPL to extend beyond code. So it was definitely not GPL that made Blender popular, actually it caused a problem with game developers because games using the BGE (Blender Game Engine) were at first considered data because the code was packaged inside the blend file which had a binary format so that meant it was not covered by GPL because it considered the whole game code just data (there is a separate executable for loading the game code) but then Blender decided to change this also to GPL with extending its license and that pretty much killed commercial games made with Blender. So technically you could get away with GPLing Pharo because you could argue that Pharo image is merely data that the VM loads and not real source code, which is kinda correct but it would be messy and the legal interpretation very confusing and uncertain ( leaves a lot of room for legal interpretation ) . As a company you cannot risk this , especially while you expect to make big profit. As stef said GPL is like a virus, it spread anywhere it touches. Even if all you do is add a tiny bit of GPL code inside the Pharo image would turn the entire Pharo implementation including the VM into GPL and because Pharo tries to approach as many companies as possible as most other languages do , because money helps improve the popularity and the quality of the code, MIT is definitely the way to do. So its more a "have to" than a "must to". Also double license or not its kinda pointless, the moment something becomes MIT you can be rest assured that people will pick MIT over GPL. This because you can turn MIT to GPL but you cannot turn GPL to MIT. So even if you want your project GPLed , MIT is still more than enough and of course most people will pick MIT for commercial apps so they don't need to open source their code. So no, it does not matter that Spec is double licensed , or if it is legal that is double licensed , since its active implementation is MIT this all you need to know. So for Pharo and pretty much almost all other programming languages out there who aspire to be used by as many people as possible and play an active role in the software market MIT like license is a mandatory choice. The irony of people not wanting to open source their code but wanting to use open source code. Its this type of thinking that justifies the existence of GPL. On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 2:59 PM Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas < offray.luna@mutabit.com> wrote:

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

Yes, MIT is a key reason Pharo makes sense to use for me. I can embed it in what I want, no issues. Phil On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 7:45 PM, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:

About my tone may I ask a question? Yes sometimes I feel irritated. I'm human and I feel irritated.

May be you know the trick that some smart manager use to control the length of meetings...

I experienced in our team in the past meetings with 18 people and one guy was always talking a lot more than others. And I was always asking myself: does it have conscience that each minute he is taking is in fact 18 min because we could all spend 1 min doing something else.

After that I heard about team that have strange clock where the clock is multiplying by the amount of participants.

So when I participate to meetings I always think about what is the value that I bring to other time.

Now we are all busy, you see some people in our team and outside told me that they do not have the time to follow Pharo mailing-lists because there are too many emails. And we all lose because the insights of such people could be really great.

So some alternatives:

- do not care do not read the pharo mailing-list, I would not feel happy with such solution.

- be forced to react when something wrong is said because this is important for everybody. And yes sometimes I'm irritated because I feel forced to say something.I have the impression that not saying anything is a kind of luxury that I do not have.

- have a closed contributors only mailing-list (not good does not feel nice).

This license point is key and this is why I reacted. And I reacted that way because I CARE about our system and I CARE about our communitee.

Out there, there is Java, Lua, Python, Ruby, Swift, Objective-C and many more. So we should pay attention to our ecosystem and the license

is an integral part of it.

So sorry to be rude but I'm ***REALLY*** busy. Much more than you can imagine. Even more. And I feel responsible.

Stef

Le 7/9/16 à 14:40, Dimitris Chloupis a écrit :

Ironically enough "this is our way , take it or leave it" would not work for Pharo because its smalltalk and basically smalltalk by architecture allow you to deeply modify the system from the get go.

This make Pharo technically impossible to control from a dictator and committee point of view like lets say Python or Linux. CPython is a single implementation , but with pharo every pharo app is essentially a new pharo implementation. The moment you modify or extend the pharo image you make a new pharo implementation.

I don't like the tone Stef is expressing , he is quite rude and definitely does not represent the tone of the community which far more open to dialogue but he is correct , GPL would never have worked for Pharo. Actually I dont think I have seen a language that is fairly popular under a GPL license.

There is of course software under GPL which is sucessful commercially, Blender is an example, but GPL does not cover 3d assets, music and sound. In that case you use another kind of license like creative commons or heavily modify GPL to extend beyond code. So it was definitely not GPL that made Blender popular, actually it caused a problem with game developers because games using the BGE (Blender Game Engine) were at first considered data because the code was packaged inside the blend file which had a binary format so that meant it was not covered by GPL because it considered the whole game code just data (there is a separate executable for loading the game code) but then Blender decided to change this also to GPL with extending its license and that pretty much killed commercial games made with Blender.

So technically you could get away with GPLing Pharo because you could argue that Pharo image is merely data that the VM loads and not real source code, which is kinda correct but it would be messy and the legal interpretation very confusing and uncertain ( leaves a lot of room for legal interpretation ) . As a company you cannot risk this , especially while you expect to make big profit.

As stef said GPL is like a virus, it spread anywhere it touches. Even if all you do is add a tiny bit of GPL code inside the Pharo image would turn the entire Pharo implementation including the VM into GPL and because Pharo tries to approach as many companies as possible as most other languages do , because money helps improve the popularity and the quality of the code, MIT is definitely the way to do.

So its more a "have to" than a "must to".

Also double license or not its kinda pointless, the moment something becomes MIT you can be rest assured that people will pick MIT over GPL. This because you can turn MIT to GPL but you cannot turn GPL to MIT. So even if you want your project GPLed , MIT is still more than enough and of course most people will pick MIT for commercial apps so they don't need to open source their code.

So no, it does not matter that Spec is double licensed , or if it is legal that is double licensed , since its active implementation is MIT this all you need to know.

So for Pharo and pretty much almost all other programming languages out there who aspire to be used by as many people as possible and play an active role in the software market MIT like license is a mandatory choice. The irony of people not wanting to open source their code but wanting to use open source code. Its this type of thinking that justifies the existence of GPL.

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 2:59 PM Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas < offray.luna@mutabit.com> wrote:

...

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

Stef latching. Known thing. Get over it. Just happens. Grow a thicker skin. And s/<offensive>//g Phil On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios@gmail.com> wrote:

Personally I dont mind you being rude to me, I am a lawyer , by profession I am thick skinned. Busy ? being there done that. And we all snap from time to time and I agree doing is usually more than important that talking , but , there is always a BUT.

In any case I dont want to drag the issue its just I care for Pharo maybe not much as you do since I have not invested as much as you have but I do think talking is also important it helps people get more confident in being part of a community , this in term can lead to motivation to being active contributors. When I joined Pharo community I got a lot of encouragement from people here for my efforts , it may be talk, but emotionally is very important to know that people appreciate your work and respect you as a person.

A small advise from a person that happens to see what having too many responsibilities can do to a person, take care yourself because the effects of overworking are not immediate , it will get much worse down the road unless you make yourself a priority.

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:46 PM stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:

...

About my tone may I ask a question? Yes sometimes I feel irritated. I'm human and I feel irritated.

May be you know the trick that some smart manager use to control the length of meetings...

I experienced in our team in the past meetings with 18 people and one guy was always talking a lot more than others. And I was always asking myself: does it have conscience that each minute he is taking is in fact 18 min because we could all spend 1 min doing something else.

After that I heard about team that have strange clock where the clock is multiplying by the amount of participants.

So when I participate to meetings I always think about what is the value that I bring to other time.

Now we are all busy, you see some people in our team and outside told me that they do not have the time to follow Pharo mailing-lists because there are too many emails. And we all lose because the insights of such people could be really great.

So some alternatives:

- do not care do not read the pharo mailing-list, I would not feel happy with such solution.

- be forced to react when something wrong is said because this is important for everybody. And yes sometimes I'm irritated because I feel forced to say something.I have the impression that not saying anything is a kind of luxury that I do not have.

- have a closed contributors only mailing-list (not good does not feel nice).

This license point is key and this is why I reacted. And I reacted that way because I CARE about our system and I CARE about our communitee.

Out there, there is Java, Lua, Python, Ruby, Swift, Objective-C and many more. So we should pay attention to our ecosystem and the license

is an integral part of it.

So sorry to be rude but I'm ***REALLY*** busy. Much more than you can imagine. Even more. And I feel responsible.

Stef

Le 7/9/16 à 14:40, Dimitris Chloupis a écrit :

Ironically enough "this is our way , take it or leave it" would not work for Pharo because its smalltalk and basically smalltalk by architecture allow you to deeply modify the system from the get go.

This make Pharo technically impossible to control from a dictator and committee point of view like lets say Python or Linux. CPython is a single implementation , but with pharo every pharo app is essentially a new pharo implementation. The moment you modify or extend the pharo image you make a new pharo implementation.

I don't like the tone Stef is expressing , he is quite rude and definitely does not represent the tone of the community which far more open to dialogue but he is correct , GPL would never have worked for Pharo. Actually I dont think I have seen a language that is fairly popular under a GPL license.

There is of course software under GPL which is sucessful commercially, Blender is an example, but GPL does not cover 3d assets, music and sound. In that case you use another kind of license like creative commons or heavily modify GPL to extend beyond code. So it was definitely not GPL that made Blender popular, actually it caused a problem with game developers because games using the BGE (Blender Game Engine) were at first considered data because the code was packaged inside the blend file which had a binary format so that meant it was not covered by GPL because it considered the whole game code just data (there is a separate executable for loading the game code) but then Blender decided to change this also to GPL with extending its license and that pretty much killed commercial games made with Blender.

So technically you could get away with GPLing Pharo because you could argue that Pharo image is merely data that the VM loads and not real source code, which is kinda correct but it would be messy and the legal interpretation very confusing and uncertain ( leaves a lot of room for legal interpretation ) . As a company you cannot risk this , especially while you expect to make big profit.

As stef said GPL is like a virus, it spread anywhere it touches. Even if all you do is add a tiny bit of GPL code inside the Pharo image would turn the entire Pharo implementation including the VM into GPL and because Pharo tries to approach as many companies as possible as most other languages do , because money helps improve the popularity and the quality of the code, MIT is definitely the way to do.

So its more a "have to" than a "must to".

Also double license or not its kinda pointless, the moment something becomes MIT you can be rest assured that people will pick MIT over GPL. This because you can turn MIT to GPL but you cannot turn GPL to MIT. So even if you want your project GPLed , MIT is still more than enough and of course most people will pick MIT for commercial apps so they don't need to open source their code.

So no, it does not matter that Spec is double licensed , or if it is legal that is double licensed , since its active implementation is MIT this all you need to know.

So for Pharo and pretty much almost all other programming languages out there who aspire to be used by as many people as possible and play an active role in the software market MIT like license is a mandatory choice. The irony of people not wanting to open source their code but wanting to use open source code. Its this type of thinking that justifies the existence of GPL.

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 2:59 PM Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas < offray.luna@mutabit.com> wrote:

...

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

Yes Peter. I may sound rude but I spent hours, mails.... in the past for example just to have a booth in a conference to promote squeak and this just because of licensing problems. So everybody can do whatever it wants but there is a cost and effect associated with it. Now the argument of oh yes this is good we can have choice is a non-argument and it is not profitable in the long term. Stef Le 7/9/16 à 14:08, PBKResearch a écrit :

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

Hi, We do not accept GPL for Pharo because is viral: it enforces GPL to “derivative work”, and in OO, where you basically refine classes, is hard to see when your work is a separated thing and when is “a derivate” (one could say that in smalltalk, everything you do is a derivate… 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 :)… but that restricts your program in two ways: 1) is not eligible for integration into Pharo. Is not even eligible for “look at it and pick ideas”, 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 terms… 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 didn’t 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@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@free.fr <mailto:stepharo@free.fr>> wrote:

Le 7/9/16 à 08:53, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas a écrit :

...

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 Hernán,

Offray

On 07/09/16 06:48, phil@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, Hernán Morales Durand <hernan.morales@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.

Hernán

[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@tudorgirba.com <mailto:tudor@tudorgirba.com>>: Hi Hernán,

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, Hernán Morales Durand <hernan.morales@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)

Hernán

2016-09-06 16:47 GMT-03:00 stepharo <stepharo@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 à 11:40, Hernán Morales Durand a écrit :

...

Hi Stephan,

2016-09-06 2:52 GMT-03:00 Stephan Eggermont <stephan@stack.nl <mailto:stephan@stack.nl>>: On 06/09/16 06:24, Hernán 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,

Hernán

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."

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.

Hernán

[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@tudorgirba.com <mailto:tudor@tudorgirba.com>>:

Hi Hernán,

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, Hernán Morales Durand <hernan.morales@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) > > Hernán > > > 2016-09-06 16:47 GMT-03:00 stepharo <stepharo@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 à 11:40, Hernán Morales Durand a écrit : >> >> Hi Stephan, >> >> 2016-09-06 2:52 GMT-03:00 Stephan Eggermont <stephan@stack.nl <mailto:stephan@stack.nl>>: >> On 06/09/16 06:24, Hernán 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, >> >> Hernán >> >> 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."

2016-09-06 2:53 GMT-03:00 Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich@gmail.com>:

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 6:24 AM, Hernán Morales Durand <hernan.morales@gmail.com> wrote:

...

I am happy to announce the release of Territorial, a new Smalltalk

library

...

for Geographical Information Retrieval in geopolitical objects.

Great ! At the moment, I don't have immediate needs of this but this might change in the future.

...

Blog post with details: http://80738163270632.blogspot.com/2016/08/territorial.html

The link does not work, apparently the correct link is : http://80738163270632.blogspot.fr/2016/09/territorial.html

Thanks! I forgot to update, yes the correct link is http://80738163270632.blogspot.fr/2016/09/territorial.html

...

User Manual: http://bit.ly/2c4RrCJ

Nice documentation !

I see you are using github. Try to setup a CI job and maybe put your code also on github. Ask me if you need help.

Regards, -- Serge Stinckwich UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/