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.l...@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-lawsuit-appoints-compliance-officer/ > [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."
