subject:"\[Pharo\-users\] Pharo 7 license question"

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

2017-10-04 Thread Jimmie Houchin

Thanks for the reply.  I am not very familiar with compiled code. I just 
wanted to explore and see if there were any ways that Pharo and GPL 
sources could work together. The only way I see that can happen is to 
have your GPL code provide something like a REST API and communicate via 
networking. Not very friendly for some small situations.


Jimmie


On 10/04/2017 08:09 AM, Ben Coman wrote:



On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 1:45 AM, Jimmie Houchin > wrote:


Back on topic.

To my understanding, if I should port anything GPL licensed that I
needed from some language to a C library and licensed it GPL. Then
I called my new GPL C library via UFFI. I should have no problems
at all. Is that a correct understanding by all?

Does this look like a good approach for most anyone in the Pharo
community if they desire to port and use GPL software?


UFFI is use via "linking", so your C library needs to LGPL to avoid 
your Smalltalk code needing to be GPL licensed.

cheers -ben


Thanks.

Jimmie



On 09/15/2017 03:49 PM, Jimmie Houchin wrote:

Hello,

Pharo 7 to my understanding fundamentally changes Pharo. It is
my understanding that Pharo 7 starts with a core Pharo kernel
and like many languages out there, imports or adds code from a
variety of external sources to the image being built.

With that understanding, I am curious if that would allow for
inclusion of a specific library/module to be licensed as GPL?
And it not affect the other code in the composed image?

I am a big believer in the MIT/BSD license and not a big fan
of the GPL. However, there is software out there that I have
avoided looking at the source code or attempting to port it to
Pharo because it is GPL. I would sincerely love if I could now
port such a library and license it under the GPL as required,
and it not affect any other code outside of that specific library.

I am not a lawyer. Nor do I know any lawyers. Is is possible
for someone to get a reasonably definitive answer on this
question?

I am sure I am not the only one who has had this desire. I am
also sure that I am not the only one who will have this
question in the future. So it would be nice to have a proper
legal response that could possibly be explicitly stated
somewhere on the website or on an FAQ or something.

Regardless of the answer, yes or no. It does need to be a
settled issue for Pharo. That way someone could know if
GPL/LGPL or whatever software could be in the catalog.

Just wanted to put that out there to the community. I look
forward to the answer, should one be or become available.

Thanks.


Jimmie

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

2017-10-04 Thread Jimmie Houchin


On 10/04/2017 03:48 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote:

On 3 Oct 2017, at 06:10, Jimmie Houchin  wrote:

Good and valid questions.

Primarily consumer side. I am a longtime user of Linux, 20+ years. I prefer and 
advocate for open source software even when required to use Windows/Mac. So in 
general in personal life with friends, family, acquaintances if the subject is 
computers or software and the opportunity is reasonable I will advocate for 
open source software. Many times simply as an opportunity to educate people who 
may not know or be misinformed.

I am a business man, an employee of a company. My employer is purely a Windows 
shop. No development is a part of my day job.

All of my use of development software is personal projects. I have not released 
any software. Nothing has reached a point to release. I am however wanting to 
release a couple of projects this next year. One I hope to make money off of 
the use of and not the sale of. The other is personal, not business software. I 
hope to have both in a releasable state sometime in the next 6 months.

My problem has always been indecision on what I thought would be the best 
language for the project. I have always loved Pharo/Smalltalk. But sometimes I 
explore other languages. Sometimes because they already have libraries and 
bindings that would make the project easier. This is still a very reasonable 
possibility. I am not a professional. I only program in my spare time. Due to 
my job, sometimes that is very little.

Regardless, the software I hope to get to a releasable stage I do plan on 
releasing as MIT. It is the license I prefer and believe in. One need not 
program or release software in order to be an advocate.

I have no problem with someone writing closed source software. That is their 
personal or business choice. Myself, I have spent way to much money on software 
which was closed source and the company disappeared or changed directions. Then 
I am stuck with software that has no future.

This is a bit my point: if you respect closed-source software and commercial 
restrictive licenses, you should also respect GPL and friends as valid choices 
and not describe them with negative adjectives.

On ethical grounds, I like GPL a lot. It is also very successful (Linux, GNU). 
It is a valid choice. And yes, in certain license constructions that could mean 
you cannot use certain software.


Regarding negative adjectives. I asked for positive ones that are 
equivalent to the negative ones. I also demonstrated that the negative 
ones are quite often used positively in a number of areas beyond 
software. However, there is no better or even equivalent term for viral 
or infect(ious).


I only brought up this discussion to see if the new Pharo 7 
bootstrapping would open up the options to use GPL code. See, I was 
trying to do something positive with GPL source code. But the GPL 
license prevents this from happening. And because I respect licenses and 
laws. I will honor their choice, and their license and completely remove 
them from the option. I have not seen any way to port GPL software and 
use it from Pharo. That was my hope for this discussion. GPLv2 and GPLv3 
don't even play nice with each other.


I respect all choices. I also believe there are consequences for choices 
made. Anybody can choose to make their software GPL. I also can choose 
not to view the source of any of it because of the consequences of 
viewing that source code. Which means ultimately that GPL will have many 
people like me who opt out of their sources. I respect the right they 
have to make that choice. They also need to respect mine.


We will probably have to agree to disagree on some of the above. I am 
okay with that. People have different views.



On a more positive note: I personally think that a system like Pharo is the 
ultimate open source incarnation as you can literally read and change each and 
every part in the same language (modulo the VM and plugins, but I am on the 
as-much-in-image as-possible side). I guess very, very few people actually 
looked inside the Linux kernel, C library or C compiler, let alone a driver, as 
these are much too complex and too far removed from your own program. In Pharo 
you can stumble into code in very deep areas such as graphics, the compiler, 
the debugger, etc ...


I do love your positive note. You have aptly demonstrated your Pharo 
rock star status. I love everything you have done, even if I don't 
understand all your code. :)  Maybe when I grow up, I can code like you.
(Probably not. And I am not that young. I have children older than half 
the people here.)


This ultimate open source incarnation of Pharo and its ability to find, 
see, change everything is a thing of beauty. Which is why I have always 
struggled when I look outside of Pharo and hear the benefits of whatever 
language. Then I go and try that language. It always drives me back to 
Pharo. The ability to discover

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

2017-10-04 Thread Sven Van Caekenberghe



> On 3 Oct 2017, at 06:10, Jimmie Houchin  wrote:
> 
> Good and valid questions.
> 
> Primarily consumer side. I am a longtime user of Linux, 20+ years. I prefer 
> and advocate for open source software even when required to use Windows/Mac. 
> So in general in personal life with friends, family, acquaintances if the 
> subject is computers or software and the opportunity is reasonable I will 
> advocate for open source software. Many times simply as an opportunity to 
> educate people who may not know or be misinformed.
> 
> I am a business man, an employee of a company. My employer is purely a 
> Windows shop. No development is a part of my day job.
> 
> All of my use of development software is personal projects. I have not 
> released any software. Nothing has reached a point to release. I am however 
> wanting to release a couple of projects this next year. One I hope to make 
> money off of the use of and not the sale of. The other is personal, not 
> business software. I hope to have both in a releasable state sometime in the 
> next 6 months.
> 
> My problem has always been indecision on what I thought would be the best 
> language for the project. I have always loved Pharo/Smalltalk. But sometimes 
> I explore other languages. Sometimes because they already have libraries and 
> bindings that would make the project easier. This is still a very reasonable 
> possibility. I am not a professional. I only program in my spare time. Due to 
> my job, sometimes that is very little.
> 
> Regardless, the software I hope to get to a releasable stage I do plan on 
> releasing as MIT. It is the license I prefer and believe in. One need not 
> program or release software in order to be an advocate.
> 
> I have no problem with someone writing closed source software. That is their 
> personal or business choice. Myself, I have spent way to much money on 
> software which was closed source and the company disappeared or changed 
> directions. Then I am stuck with software that has no future.

This is a bit my point: if you respect closed-source software and commercial 
restrictive licenses, you should also respect GPL and friends as valid choices 
and not describe them with negative adjectives.

On ethical grounds, I like GPL a lot. It is also very successful (Linux, GNU). 
It is a valid choice. And yes, in certain license constructions that could mean 
you cannot use certain software.

On a more positive note: I personally think that a system like Pharo is the 
ultimate open source incarnation as you can literally read and change each and 
every part in the same language (modulo the VM and plugins, but I am on the 
as-much-in-image as-possible side). I guess very, very few people actually 
looked inside the Linux kernel, C library or C compiler, let alone a driver, as 
these are much too complex and too far removed from your own program. In Pharo 
you can stumble into code in very deep areas such as graphics, the compiler, 
the debugger, etc ...

> Jimmie
> 
> 
> On 10/02/2017 03:36 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote:
>> Jimmie,
>> 
>> Since you started this thread, I have to ask.
>> 
>> You say you are an advocate of open source software. OK. But are you just on 
>> the consumer side or also on the producer side ? In other words, have you 
>> written/published/supported any non-trivial open source software ?
>> 
>> Are you an academic or are you involved in commercial software (i.e. have 
>> you written closed software that you sell or otherwise make money off) ?
>> 
>> Sven
>> 
>>> On 2 Oct 2017, at 22:06, Jimmie Houchin  wrote:
>>> 
>>> No I have not. I don't tend to go their direction very often. I am an 
>>> advocate of open source software but am not a fan of FSF's ethics or 
>>> political opinions. And as you say, that want all software to be GPL. Also, 
>>> I do prefer to hear third party opinions especially those who have 
>>> potentially court tested ones. That is ultimately where we find the true 
>>> definition and understanding.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Jimmie
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 10/02/2017 02:48 PM, Peter Uhnák wrote:
 But of course this is written by FSF, and for them GPL is not just a legal 
 matter, but an ethical one (and from their perspective GPL being a virus 
 infecting other code is a good comparison, because they really want to 
 take over).
>>> 
>> 
> 
>

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

2017-10-04 Thread Ben Coman

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 1:45 AM, Jimmie Houchin  wrote:

> Back on topic.
>
> To my understanding, if I should port anything GPL licensed that I needed
> from some language to a C library and licensed it GPL. Then I called my new
> GPL C library via UFFI. I should have no problems at all. Is that a correct
> understanding by all?
>
> Does this look like a good approach for most anyone in the Pharo community
> if they desire to port and use GPL software?
>

UFFI is use via "linking", so your C library needs to LGPL to avoid your
Smalltalk code needing to be GPL licensed.
cheers -ben



>
> Thanks.
>
> Jimmie
>
>
>
> On 09/15/2017 03:49 PM, Jimmie Houchin wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Pharo 7 to my understanding fundamentally changes Pharo. It is my
>> understanding that Pharo 7 starts with a core Pharo kernel and like many
>> languages out there, imports or adds code from a variety of external
>> sources to the image being built.
>>
>> With that understanding, I am curious if that would allow for inclusion
>> of a specific library/module to be licensed as GPL? And it not affect the
>> other code in the composed image?
>>
>> I am a big believer in the MIT/BSD license and not a big fan of the GPL.
>> However, there is software out there that I have avoided looking at the
>> source code or attempting to port it to Pharo because it is GPL. I would
>> sincerely love if I could now port such a library and license it under the
>> GPL as required, and it not affect any other code outside of that specific
>> library.
>>
>> I am not a lawyer. Nor do I know any lawyers. Is is possible for someone
>> to get a reasonably definitive answer on this question?
>>
>> I am sure I am not the only one who has had this desire. I am also sure
>> that I am not the only one who will have this question in the future. So it
>> would be nice to have a proper legal response that could possibly be
>> explicitly stated somewhere on the website or on an FAQ or something.
>>
>> Regardless of the answer, yes or no. It does need to be a settled issue
>> for Pharo. That way someone could know if GPL/LGPL or whatever software
>> could be in the catalog.
>>
>> Just wanted to put that out there to the community. I look forward to the
>> answer, should one be or become available.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> Jimmie
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

2017-10-02 Thread Jimmie Houchin


Good and valid questions.

Primarily consumer side. I am a longtime user of Linux, 20+ years. I 
prefer and advocate for open source software even when required to use 
Windows/Mac. So in general in personal life with friends, family, 
acquaintances if the subject is computers or software and the 
opportunity is reasonable I will advocate for open source software. Many 
times simply as an opportunity to educate people who may not know or be 
misinformed.


I am a business man, an employee of a company. My employer is purely a 
Windows shop. No development is a part of my day job.


All of my use of development software is personal projects. I have not 
released any software. Nothing has reached a point to release. I am 
however wanting to release a couple of projects this next year. One I 
hope to make money off of the use of and not the sale of. The other is 
personal, not business software. I hope to have both in a releasable 
state sometime in the next 6 months.


My problem has always been indecision on what I thought would be the 
best language for the project. I have always loved Pharo/Smalltalk. But 
sometimes I explore other languages. Sometimes because they already have 
libraries and bindings that would make the project easier. This is still 
a very reasonable possibility. I am not a professional. I only program 
in my spare time. Due to my job, sometimes that is very little.


Regardless, the software I hope to get to a releasable stage I do plan 
on releasing as MIT. It is the license I prefer and believe in. One need 
not program or release software in order to be an advocate.


I have no problem with someone writing closed source software. That is 
their personal or business choice. Myself, I have spent way to much 
money on software which was closed source and the company disappeared or 
changed directions. Then I am stuck with software that has no future.


Jimmie


On 10/02/2017 03:36 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote:

Jimmie,

Since you started this thread, I have to ask.

You say you are an advocate of open source software. OK. But are you just on 
the consumer side or also on the producer side ? In other words, have you 
written/published/supported any non-trivial open source software ?

Are you an academic or are you involved in commercial software (i.e. have you 
written closed software that you sell or otherwise make money off) ?

Sven


On 2 Oct 2017, at 22:06, Jimmie Houchin  wrote:

No I have not. I don't tend to go their direction very often. I am an advocate 
of open source software but am not a fan of FSF's ethics or political opinions. 
And as you say, that want all software to be GPL. Also, I do prefer to hear 
third party opinions especially those who have potentially court tested ones. 
That is ultimately where we find the true definition and understanding.

Thanks.

Jimmie



On 10/02/2017 02:48 PM, Peter Uhnák wrote:

But of course this is written by FSF, and for them GPL is not just a legal 
matter, but an ethical one (and from their perspective GPL being a virus 
infecting other code is a good comparison, because they really want to take 
over).

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

2017-10-02 Thread Sven Van Caekenberghe

Jimmie,

Since you started this thread, I have to ask. 

You say you are an advocate of open source software. OK. But are you just on 
the consumer side or also on the producer side ? In other words, have you 
written/published/supported any non-trivial open source software ?

Are you an academic or are you involved in commercial software (i.e. have you 
written closed software that you sell or otherwise make money off) ?

Sven

> On 2 Oct 2017, at 22:06, Jimmie Houchin  wrote:
> 
> No I have not. I don't tend to go their direction very often. I am an 
> advocate of open source software but am not a fan of FSF's ethics or 
> political opinions. And as you say, that want all software to be GPL. Also, I 
> do prefer to hear third party opinions especially those who have potentially 
> court tested ones. That is ultimately where we find the true definition and 
> understanding.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Jimmie
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/02/2017 02:48 PM, Peter Uhnák wrote:
>> 
>> But of course this is written by FSF, and for them GPL is not just a legal 
>> matter, but an ethical one (and from their perspective GPL being a virus 
>> infecting other code is a good comparison, because they really want to take 
>> over).
> 
>

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

2017-10-02 Thread Jimmie Houchin

No I have not. I don't tend to go their direction very often. I am an 
advocate of open source software but am not a fan of FSF's ethics or 
political opinions. And as you say, that want all software to be GPL. 
Also, I do prefer to hear third party opinions especially those who have 
potentially court tested ones. That is ultimately where we find the true 
definition and understanding.


Thanks.

Jimmie



On 10/02/2017 02:48 PM, Peter Uhnák wrote:


But of course this is written by FSF, and for them GPL is not just a 
legal matter, but an ethical one (and from their perspective GPL being 
a virus infecting other code is a good comparison, because they really 
want to take over).

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

2017-10-02 Thread Peter Uhnák

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Jimmie Houchin  wrote:

> Back on topic.
>
> To my understanding, if I should port anything GPL licensed that I needed
> from some language to a C library and licensed it GPL. Then I called my new
> GPL C library via UFFI. I should have no problems at all. Is that a correct
> understanding by all?
>

Have you read the GPL's FAQ?
There's a whole section dedicated to combination of works (Combining work
with code released under the GPL).
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html#TOCMereAggregation
.

But of course this is written by FSF, and for them GPL is not just a legal
matter, but an ethical one (and from their perspective GPL being a virus
infecting other code is a good comparison, because they really want to take
over).

Peter

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

2017-10-02 Thread Jimmie Houchin

Thanks for the reply and the link. Reasonably informative, but 
unfortunately not as definitive as one would like. What a mess. Makes me 
really appreciate the permissive licenses. No headaches. :)


I was just curious if that was an option. Fortunately I believe I have 
alternatives to what I was looking to do. So I can avoid it all together.


Someone posted a view by the Racket developers on their understanding of 
their choice of the LGPL for Racket. It seems that they are switching to 
MIT/Apache for Racket 7, the next version. They had all contributors 
sign agreements to the relicensing.


https://github.com/racket/racket/issues/1570

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/racket-dev/FiBLEZ-fmn8/8uLTbNamEwAJ

Again thanks for the lesson and help.


Jimmie


On 10/02/2017 01:47 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote:



On 2 Oct 2017, at 19:45, Jimmie Houchin  wrote:

Back on topic.

To my understanding, if I should port anything GPL licensed that I needed from 
some language to a C library and licensed it GPL. Then I called my new GPL C 
library via UFFI. I should have no problems at all. Is that a correct 
understanding by all?

Does this look like a good approach for most anyone in the Pharo community if 
they desire to port and use GPL software?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Libraries

There are different opinions, but I seem to clearly remember the GNU ReadLine 
case: even though it is a library that you can link to, using it is only 
allowed by other GPL programs.


Thanks.

Jimmie


On 09/15/2017 03:49 PM, Jimmie Houchin wrote:

Hello,

Pharo 7 to my understanding fundamentally changes Pharo. It is my understanding 
that Pharo 7 starts with a core Pharo kernel and like many languages out there, 
imports or adds code from a variety of external sources to the image being 
built.

With that understanding, I am curious if that would allow for inclusion of a 
specific library/module to be licensed as GPL? And it not affect the other code 
in the composed image?

I am a big believer in the MIT/BSD license and not a big fan of the GPL. 
However, there is software out there that I have avoided looking at the source 
code or attempting to port it to Pharo because it is GPL. I would sincerely 
love if I could now port such a library and license it under the GPL as 
required, and it not affect any other code outside of that specific library.

I am not a lawyer. Nor do I know any lawyers. Is is possible for someone to get 
a reasonably definitive answer on this question?

I am sure I am not the only one who has had this desire. I am also sure that I 
am not the only one who will have this question in the future. So it would be 
nice to have a proper legal response that could possibly be explicitly stated 
somewhere on the website or on an FAQ or something.

Regardless of the answer, yes or no. It does need to be a settled issue for 
Pharo. That way someone could know if GPL/LGPL or whatever software could be in 
the catalog.

Just wanted to put that out there to the community. I look forward to the 
answer, should one be or become available.

Thanks.


Jimmie

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

2017-10-02 Thread Sven Van Caekenberghe



> On 2 Oct 2017, at 19:45, Jimmie Houchin  wrote:
> 
> Back on topic.
> 
> To my understanding, if I should port anything GPL licensed that I needed 
> from some language to a C library and licensed it GPL. Then I called my new 
> GPL C library via UFFI. I should have no problems at all. Is that a correct 
> understanding by all?
> 
> Does this look like a good approach for most anyone in the Pharo community if 
> they desire to port and use GPL software?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Libraries

There are different opinions, but I seem to clearly remember the GNU ReadLine 
case: even though it is a library that you can link to, using it is only 
allowed by other GPL programs.

> Thanks.
> 
> Jimmie
> 
> 
> On 09/15/2017 03:49 PM, Jimmie Houchin wrote:
>> Hello,
>> 
>> Pharo 7 to my understanding fundamentally changes Pharo. It is my 
>> understanding that Pharo 7 starts with a core Pharo kernel and like many 
>> languages out there, imports or adds code from a variety of external sources 
>> to the image being built.
>> 
>> With that understanding, I am curious if that would allow for inclusion of a 
>> specific library/module to be licensed as GPL? And it not affect the other 
>> code in the composed image?
>> 
>> I am a big believer in the MIT/BSD license and not a big fan of the GPL. 
>> However, there is software out there that I have avoided looking at the 
>> source code or attempting to port it to Pharo because it is GPL. I would 
>> sincerely love if I could now port such a library and license it under the 
>> GPL as required, and it not affect any other code outside of that specific 
>> library.
>> 
>> I am not a lawyer. Nor do I know any lawyers. Is is possible for someone to 
>> get a reasonably definitive answer on this question?
>> 
>> I am sure I am not the only one who has had this desire. I am also sure that 
>> I am not the only one who will have this question in the future. So it would 
>> be nice to have a proper legal response that could possibly be explicitly 
>> stated somewhere on the website or on an FAQ or something.
>> 
>> Regardless of the answer, yes or no. It does need to be a settled issue for 
>> Pharo. That way someone could know if GPL/LGPL or whatever software could be 
>> in the catalog.
>> 
>> Just wanted to put that out there to the community. I look forward to the 
>> answer, should one be or become available.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> 
>> Jimmie
>> 
>> 
> 
>

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

2017-10-02 Thread Jimmie Houchin


Back on topic.

To my understanding, if I should port anything GPL licensed that I 
needed from some language to a C library and licensed it GPL. Then I 
called my new GPL C library via UFFI. I should have no problems at all. 
Is that a correct understanding by all?


Does this look like a good approach for most anyone in the Pharo 
community if they desire to port and use GPL software?


Thanks.

Jimmie


On 09/15/2017 03:49 PM, Jimmie Houchin wrote:

Hello,

Pharo 7 to my understanding fundamentally changes Pharo. It is my 
understanding that Pharo 7 starts with a core Pharo kernel and like 
many languages out there, imports or adds code from a variety of 
external sources to the image being built.


With that understanding, I am curious if that would allow for 
inclusion of a specific library/module to be licensed as GPL? And it 
not affect the other code in the composed image?


I am a big believer in the MIT/BSD license and not a big fan of the 
GPL. However, there is software out there that I have avoided looking 
at the source code or attempting to port it to Pharo because it is 
GPL. I would sincerely love if I could now port such a library and 
license it under the GPL as required, and it not affect any other code 
outside of that specific library.


I am not a lawyer. Nor do I know any lawyers. Is is possible for 
someone to get a reasonably definitive answer on this question?


I am sure I am not the only one who has had this desire. I am also 
sure that I am not the only one who will have this question in the 
future. So it would be nice to have a proper legal response that could 
possibly be explicitly stated somewhere on the website or on an FAQ or 
something.


Regardless of the answer, yes or no. It does need to be a settled 
issue for Pharo. That way someone could know if GPL/LGPL or whatever 
software could be in the catalog.


Just wanted to put that out there to the community. I look forward to 
the answer, should one be or become available.


Thanks.


Jimmie

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

2017-09-26 Thread Jimmie Houchin




On 09/26/2017 06:09 AM, Ben Coman wrote:



On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Jimmie Houchin > wrote:


Hello, thanks for the reply.

I have thought about recursive and unfortunately it is not in my
opinion an adequate or equivalent substitute. It may be
inoffensive, but it is not accurate in conveying those properties
or characteristics of the GPL. Something that is recursive
generally makes repeated calls to itself. It is neatly contained
and does not propagate outside of itself. Calling a recursive
method does not make the call chain all the way up to main
recursive. The recursive method does its recursion and generally
returns its result back to the caller, ending the recursion. The
only thing the caller receives is the results, not the recursion.

There are many positive cultural references to something viral or
infect(ious). For something to go viral, depends on what that
something is. She has an infectious smile, or laugh. Even in
biology where we get the term viral. It is not absolutely or
always negative. There are things that scientist attempt to use
viral characteristics to do good things. Context is everything.

There are no words a GPL proponent could provide which adequately
or otherwise describe the viral characteristic of the GPL that
would be considered positive by a GPL opponent.

Back to context.

To a GPL proponent, the viral nature of the GPL is considered a
positive and good thing. It is the primary reason to choose and
use the GPL.

To the GPL opponent, the viral nature of the GPL is considered a
negative and bad thing. It is the primary reason to oppose and to
avoid using the GPL.

Two side both viewing the same exact thing and understanding it
very differently. One positive, one negative. There is no positive
spin for this aspect of the GPL for someone wishing to avoid that
aspect. No matter what words are chosen.

For the MIT/BSD person we don't necessarily care if you wish to
license your software under the GPL. What we care is that your
software is expressly and explicitly trying to override our
choices and compel us to become GPL. That is what we don't like.
The fact that GPL software is GPL software in perpetuity is okay.
Just leave us alone. But we know that is not how the GPL works.


A perspective occurred to me this morning. The original author of
GPL software is not bound by the GPL. 



I think this thread has run its course for now, but just a quick 
clarification here.  The above is only true up until they accept the 
first contribution from another party - so its not a good argument.


cheers -ben   .


I agree that it has run its course. However, the original author still 
can do whatever they want with the code they wrote. They have copyright. 
But they can not undo what has been released. They cannot use any other 
contributors code without that code also affecting any of the other code 
they may have added to or modifications of the original. But the initial 
offering and any additions and modifications they do which does not 
other contributors GPLd code is still under their complete control to do 
as they wish. This is the only way anybody would be able to do dual 
licensing. As is the case in something like QT or other such projects. 
But anything they write which is without contributions is still totally 
within their control to do so as they please. And as I said, there are 
many projects who started out as GPL and switched to MIT. Yes, someone 
could still take what was released as GPL and keep it going. But it 
would then be competing with the MIT version. Nim and PicoLisp are two 
such projects that started as GPL and moved to MIT.


They could even do so with contributed code if the contributors signed 
agreements assigning copyrights to the original author.



Jimmie

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

2017-09-26 Thread Ben Coman

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Jimmie Houchin  wrote:

> Hello, thanks for the reply.
>
> I have thought about recursive and unfortunately it is not in my opinion
> an adequate or equivalent substitute. It may be inoffensive, but it is not
> accurate in conveying those properties or characteristics of the GPL.
> Something that is recursive generally makes repeated calls to itself. It is
> neatly contained and does not propagate outside of itself. Calling a
> recursive method does not make the call chain all the way up to main
> recursive. The recursive method does its recursion and generally returns
> its result back to the caller, ending the recursion. The only thing the
> caller receives is the results, not the recursion.
>
> There are many positive cultural references to something viral or
> infect(ious). For something to go viral, depends on what that something is.
> She has an infectious smile, or laugh. Even in biology where we get the
> term viral. It is not absolutely or always negative. There are things that
> scientist attempt to use viral characteristics to do good things. Context
> is everything.
>
> There are no words a GPL proponent could provide which adequately or
> otherwise describe the viral characteristic of the GPL that would be
> considered positive by a GPL opponent.
>
> Back to context.
>
> To a GPL proponent, the viral nature of the GPL is considered a positive
> and good thing. It is the primary reason to choose and use the GPL.
>
> To the GPL opponent, the viral nature of the GPL is considered a negative
> and bad thing. It is the primary reason to oppose and to avoid using the
> GPL.
>
> Two side both viewing the same exact thing and understanding it very
> differently. One positive, one negative. There is no positive spin for this
> aspect of the GPL for someone wishing to avoid that aspect. No matter what
> words are chosen.
>
> For the MIT/BSD person we don't necessarily care if you wish to license
> your software under the GPL. What we care is that your software is
> expressly and explicitly trying to override our choices and compel us to
> become GPL. That is what we don't like. The fact that GPL software is GPL
> software in perpetuity is okay. Just leave us alone. But we know that is
> not how the GPL works.
>
>
> A perspective occurred to me this morning. The original author of GPL
> software is not bound by the GPL.


I think this thread has run its course for now, but just a quick
clarification here.  The above is only true up until they accept the first
contribution from another party - so its not a good argument.

cheers -ben   .


> They have freedoms the GPL takes away. They have the freedom to turn their
> software into closed source, proprietary software. They have the freedom to
> not release all of their modifications. They have the freedom to not infect
> all their other software which may use this otherwise GPLd code. They have
> freedom to relicense their software. They have many, many freedoms which
> the GPL removes from everyone who receives the GPLd software. The original
> author of GPL software has for himself MIT like freedoms.
>
> What we on the MIT/BSD side of things want is for everybody to have all of
> the freedoms the original author of the software has. People who receive
> our software maintain all freedoms.
>
> I have seen over the years many GPL licensed projects change to some more
> permissive license. Once they did so, the success of the project improved.
> They had greater buy in, and an increase in use. It increased the size of
> the open source community and an increase in the code base of an open
> source project. These are good things.
>
> Here I will let it rest. I don't know what else can be expressed to help
> clarify both sides.
>
> Jimmie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 09/22/2017 03:27 AM, Hilaire wrote:
>
>> The appropriate and neutral term to describe GPL licence is "recursive".
>>
>> GPL licence was designed to build a better computing community, where
>> freedom is 1st consideration, even at the expense of a lower acceptance.
>>
>> Hilaire
>>
>>
>> Le 20/09/2017 à 21:30, Jimmie Houchin a écrit :
>>
>>> So my question to you. What words would you use instead of viral and
>>> infection that equally describe that characteristic of the GPL and variants?
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

2017-09-25 Thread Jimmie Houchin


Hello, thanks for the reply.

I have thought about recursive and unfortunately it is not in my opinion 
an adequate or equivalent substitute. It may be inoffensive, but it is 
not accurate in conveying those properties or characteristics of the 
GPL. Something that is recursive generally makes repeated calls to 
itself. It is neatly contained and does not propagate outside of itself. 
Calling a recursive method does not make the call chain all the way up 
to main recursive. The recursive method does its recursion and generally 
returns its result back to the caller, ending the recursion. The only 
thing the caller receives is the results, not the recursion.


There are many positive cultural references to something viral or 
infect(ious). For something to go viral, depends on what that something 
is. She has an infectious smile, or laugh. Even in biology where we get 
the term viral. It is not absolutely or always negative. There are 
things that scientist attempt to use viral characteristics to do good 
things. Context is everything.


There are no words a GPL proponent could provide which adequately or 
otherwise describe the viral characteristic of the GPL that would be 
considered positive by a GPL opponent.


Back to context.

To a GPL proponent, the viral nature of the GPL is considered a positive 
and good thing. It is the primary reason to choose and use the GPL.


To the GPL opponent, the viral nature of the GPL is considered a 
negative and bad thing. It is the primary reason to oppose and to avoid 
using the GPL.


Two side both viewing the same exact thing and understanding it very 
differently. One positive, one negative. There is no positive spin for 
this aspect of the GPL for someone wishing to avoid that aspect. No 
matter what words are chosen.


For the MIT/BSD person we don't necessarily care if you wish to license 
your software under the GPL. What we care is that your software is 
expressly and explicitly trying to override our choices and compel us to 
become GPL. That is what we don't like. The fact that GPL software is 
GPL software in perpetuity is okay. Just leave us alone. But we know 
that is not how the GPL works.



A perspective occurred to me this morning. The original author of GPL 
software is not bound by the GPL. They have freedoms the GPL takes away. 
They have the freedom to turn their software into closed source, 
proprietary software. They have the freedom to not release all of their 
modifications. They have the freedom to not infect all their other 
software which may use this otherwise GPLd code. They have freedom to 
relicense their software. They have many, many freedoms which the GPL 
removes from everyone who receives the GPLd software. The original 
author of GPL software has for himself MIT like freedoms.


What we on the MIT/BSD side of things want is for everybody to have all 
of the freedoms the original author of the software has. People who 
receive our software maintain all freedoms.


I have seen over the years many GPL licensed projects change to some 
more permissive license. Once they did so, the success of the project 
improved. They had greater buy in, and an increase in use. It increased 
the size of the open source community and an increase in the code base 
of an open source project. These are good things.


Here I will let it rest. I don't know what else can be expressed to help 
clarify both sides.


Jimmie






On 09/22/2017 03:27 AM, Hilaire wrote:

The appropriate and neutral term to describe GPL licence is "recursive".

GPL licence was designed to build a better computing community, where 
freedom is 1st consideration, even at the expense of a lower acceptance.


Hilaire


Le 20/09/2017 à 21:30, Jimmie Houchin a écrit :
So my question to you. What words would you use instead of viral and 
infection that equally describe that characteristic of the GPL and 
variants?

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

2017-09-22 Thread Jose San Leandro

+1 to "recursive"

2017-09-22 11:05 GMT+02:00 Hilaire :

> I am just stating the neutral term to describe GPL license nature is
> "recursive", and why it was designed as this. The "viral" term is
> unnecessary emotionally charged.
>
> I don't fell the discussion turned about MIT vs GPL, Pharo been MIT is
> just fine.
>
> Hilaire
>
> Le 22/09/2017 à 10:40, Thierry Goubier a écrit :
>
>>
>> The appropriate and neutral term to describe GPL licence is
>> "recursive".
>>
>> GPL licence was designed to build a better computing community,
>> where freedom is 1st consideration, even at the expense of a lower
>> acceptance.
>>
>>
>> And the little technical fact that you can't link code in the Smalltalk
>> world, only create a derivative work, has nothing to do with the community
>> stance on MIT versus GPL.
>>
>>
> --
> Dr. Geo
> http://drgeo.eu
>
>
>
>

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

2017-09-22 Thread Hilaire

I am just stating the neutral term to describe GPL license nature is 
"recursive", and why it was designed as this. The "viral" term is 
unnecessary emotionally charged.


I don't fell the discussion turned about MIT vs GPL, Pharo been MIT is 
just fine.


Hilaire

Le 22/09/2017 à 10:40, Thierry Goubier a écrit :


The appropriate and neutral term to describe GPL licence is
"recursive".

GPL licence was designed to build a better computing community,
where freedom is 1st consideration, even at the expense of a lower
acceptance.


And the little technical fact that you can't link code in the 
Smalltalk world, only create a derivative work, has nothing to do with 
the community stance on MIT versus GPL.




--
Dr. Geo
http://drgeo.eu

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

2017-09-22 Thread Hilaire

From my understanding, GPL is not about "someone else profiting from 
your work", but to enforce freedom and to accumulate contribution on GPL 
licensed code.


Regarding profit you are free to sell GPL licensed code, publicly or 
privately to one person or company, your only restriction is to provide 
the source code too to the recipient.


To protect from someone else profiting from your work there are 
effective variant from the creative commons licenses.


Hilaire


Le 21/09/2017 à 16:47, Ben Coman a écrit :
* With the GPL licenses, you are afraid of someone else profiting from 
your work [or profiting off end-users] (and ambiguity, and patent 
trolls)." 
[https://exygy.com/which-license-should-i-use-mit-vs-apache-vs-gpl]




--
Dr. Geo
http://drgeo.eu

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

2017-09-22 Thread Thierry Goubier

2017-09-22 10:27 GMT+02:00 Hilaire :

> The appropriate and neutral term to describe GPL licence is "recursive".
>
> GPL licence was designed to build a better computing community, where
> freedom is 1st consideration, even at the expense of a lower acceptance.
>

And the little technical fact that you can't link code in the Smalltalk
world, only create a derivative work, has nothing to do with the community
stance on MIT versus GPL.

Thierry


>
> Hilaire
>
>
> Le 20/09/2017 à 21:30, Jimmie Houchin a écrit :
>
>> So my question to you. What words would you use instead of viral and
>> infection that equally describe that characteristic of the GPL and variants?
>>
>
> --
> Dr. Geo
> http://drgeo.eu
>
>
>
>

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

2017-09-22 Thread Hilaire


The appropriate and neutral term to describe GPL licence is "recursive".

GPL licence was designed to build a better computing community, where 
freedom is 1st consideration, even at the expense of a lower acceptance.


Hilaire


Le 20/09/2017 à 21:30, Jimmie Houchin a écrit :
So my question to you. What words would you use instead of viral and 
infection that equally describe that characteristic of the GPL and 
variants?


--
Dr. Geo
http://drgeo.eu

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

2017-09-21 Thread Jose San Leandro

I wasn't being cynical when I asked if it makes sense to you the fact that
people write free software and give it away for free. I just wanted to know
if there's any obvious reason that explains that to you.

It's not my intention to judge why proponents of "permissive" licenses
think the way they do. My hypothesis is that they see software exclusively
as a way to make money. Economists are still obsessed in simplifying human
behavior as rules of incentives -> results, until it's become part of our
western cultures. It follows that we only act in our own economic interest,
and also that nobody would work for free. That's where some people find
difficult to explain free software. The same people don't think the
end-user's rights to ultimately own the software we provide are valuable.
They are consumers before users.

Regarding the book, you won't find any direct references to software
licenses. I recommend it because it advocates we treat our users
differently.

Anyway, we agree we disagree. That was never an issue.

I wish you a great day too!

2017-09-21 19:36 GMT+02:00 Jimmie Houchin :

> We will have to agree to disagree.
>
> I have been a passionate user of open source software for over 20 years.
> Are you really saying that proponents of permissive licenses don't
> understand why people write free software and give it away for free? Really!
>
> I passionately disagree with the statement of "All software should be GPLd
> in the first place". This is one of the biggest reasons I passionately
> dislike the GPL. GPL is goodness and light. All else is evil incarnate. Ugh!
>
> I am not going to defend unethical business practices. But that is not a
> defense of the GPL or an argument against permissive licenses. I am not a
> fan Microsoft or Apple, et al. I am a fan FreeBSD and Linux. However I do
> not believe all closed source or proprietary software is wrong or evil.
>
> I am working my way through the book you suggested. But so far I fail to
> see where it makes the argument for the GPL and against permissive licenses.
>
> For the record. I am not a professional programmer. All software I am
> working on if I were to release it (or when) will be under a permissive
> license, unless it is a port of GPLd software. I am not in the business of
> software. I am an empowered user. Open source software empowers me more the
> proprietary software. Permissively licensed software empowers me more than
> GPLd software**. That is not currently the case for everyone and every
> situation. One day it we may come closer to that being true. But it takes
> time. And it takes proper motivation and resources.
>
> **There are many situations that I cannot use GPLd source, but can use
> permissively licensed source. MIT/BSD empowers where, GPL does not. Here in
> this community, with this software. GPL is a no go. It is a show stopper.
> MIT/BSD is welcomed and wanted. Many other communities are likewise.
>
> As I said, we will have to agree to disagree. I doubt that anything above
> persuades you in any way.
>
> Regardless, I wish you well and have a great day!
>
> Jimmie
>
>
>
>
>
> On 09/21/2017 10:39 AM, Jose San Leandro wrote:
>
> I personally don't care about the interests of big corporations cheating
> with end-users' rights. If they were my potential customers, or any
> intermediary which is afraid of not being able to do business with them due
> to their obsession with restricting end-users' rights, then I'd probably
> have a conflict of interest. In that case, I could think of sacrificing
> ethics for food temporarily. But I'm not in that business, and I don't want
> to.
>
> I won't blame the GPL instead of the "old culture" of doing business by
> forcing customers to do only what you want them to do, and make them pay
> for any upgrade some of them could do themselves otherwise.
>
> Distributing works with GPL restricts the options to other developers
> using your product or library. No doubt about that. But ethically, that
> "freedom" only helps the old model of doing software. All software should
> be GPLd in the first place.
>
> There's a book that indirectly illustrates my point, and one I
> enthusiastically recommend: Badass users [1].
>
> Anyway, we could go on and on. It's a matter of pragmatism vs ethics of
> software.
>
> Usually, people sharing your "classic" point of view of the business of
> software don't understand why people write free software and give it for
> free.
> Is that your case?
>
> [1] http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920036593.do
>
> 2017-09-21 17:16 GMT+02:00 Jimmie Houchin :
>
>> On 09/21/2017 09:47 AM, Ben Coman wrote:
>>
>> [SNIP]
>> Its horses for courses.  No one viewpoint fits all circumstances. Another
>> way to look at it is that permissive licenses give a developer more freedom
>> to combine libraries with different licenses.
>>
>> I do like this radical simplification I bumped into...
>> "Another way of looking at it is that

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

2017-09-21 Thread Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas

Hi,

I think that licensing is an important issue and despite of being a
pretty political one (a way to express power and empowerment from/to
users) is not discussed deeply, so I welcome a lot a friendly thread
like this one. I share the views of the free software (which is not the
same as open source), but I think that not all software can be released
as such. Even the people at FSF provided exceptions like the LGPL as a
way to balance practical concerns and liberties. In the case of Pharo,
subclassing is the most common way of reusing (instead of linking), the
LGPL doesn't work (a long rationality about when/where to use it is on
[1] and a interesting analysis is [1a]).

[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
[1a] http://giovanni.bajo.it/post/56510184181/is-gpl-still-relevant

There are long discussions about how to create cultural (and other)
commons and how licensing plays a role on it. The P2P license[2], for
example, favors cooperatives instead of private corps (I think that a
modification to include small and medium business should be provided).
The idea is that license express a world view (about liberty, sharing,
reciprocity, diversity, fears, etc.) and we should not overseen that. In
my case, what I try to do is to see how a particular license plays a
role in creating a commons and making me part of a community that build
such commons goods. If I chose a different license for Grafoscopio,
instead of MIT, the tool have less probability to be part of the Pharo
commons and community (and is not properly a rising star in popularity
right now!), but I can express my concerns about diversity in licensing
and commons building in other places, like in the Grafoscopio Manual [3].

[2] https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Peer_Production_License
[3]
http://mutabit.com/repos.fossil/grafoscopio/doc/tip/Docs/En/Books/Manual/manual.pdf

So I think that we should look at how the licenses have enabled or not
the building of a common world and who is empowered by such licenses as
a complex issue, to balance practical and idealist choices, trying to
make them converge. In my case, having Grafoscopio and its documentation
and related artifacts licensed as Free Cultural Works [4], has given to
me leverage even in negotiations with big entities and they keep such
works and derived ones with the same licenses. So, from my personal
point of view and practices having such mixtures of licenses have not
diminished in any way my own practices in building commons. I would like
to explore (networks of) cooperatives and small/medium business as an
alternative economical practice to enlarge and protect the commons, but
as said, this is a complex issue that requires a lot of field work.

Cheers,

Offray

[4] http://freedomdefined.org/

On 21/09/17 10:39, Jose San Leandro wrote:
> I personally don't care about the interests of big corporations
> cheating with end-users' rights. If they were my potential customers,
> or any intermediary which is afraid of not being able to do business
> with them due to their obsession with restricting end-users' rights,
> then I'd probably have a conflict of interest. In that case, I could
> think of sacrificing ethics for food temporarily. But I'm not in that
> business, and I don't want to.
>
> I won't blame the GPL instead of the "old culture" of doing business
> by forcing customers to do only what you want them to do, and make
> them pay for any upgrade some of them could do themselves otherwise.
>
> Distributing works with GPL restricts the options to other developers
> using your product or library. No doubt about that. But ethically,
> that "freedom" only helps the old model of doing software. All
> software should be GPLd in the first place.
>
> There's a book that indirectly illustrates my point, and one I
> enthusiastically recommend: Badass users [1].
>
> Anyway, we could go on and on. It's a matter of pragmatism vs ethics
> of software.
>
> Usually, people sharing your "classic" point of view of the business
> of software don't understand why people write free software and give
> it for free.
> Is that your case?
>
> [1] http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920036593.do
>
> 2017-09-21 17:16 GMT+02:00 Jimmie Houchin  >:
>
> On 09/21/2017 09:47 AM, Ben Coman wrote:
>> [SNIP]
>> Its horses for courses.  No one viewpoint fits all circumstances.
>> Another way to look at it is that permissive licenses give a
>> developer more freedom to combine libraries with different
>> licenses.  
>>
>> I do like this radical simplification I bumped into... 
>> "Another way of looking at it is that you’re picking a license
>> based on what you are afraid of. 
>> * The MIT license is if you’re afraid no one will use your code;
>> you’re making the licensing as short and non-intimidating as
>> possible. 
>> * The Apache License you are somewhat afraid of no one using your
>> code, but you are

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

2017-09-21 Thread Jimmie Houchin


We will have to agree to disagree.

I have been a passionate user of open source software for over 20 years. 
Are you really saying that proponents of permissive licenses don't 
understand why people write free software and give it away for free? Really!


I passionately disagree with the statement of "All software should be 
GPLd in the first place". This is one of the biggest reasons I 
passionately dislike the GPL. GPL is goodness and light. All else is 
evil incarnate. Ugh!


I am not going to defend unethical business practices. But that is not a 
defense of the GPL or an argument against permissive licenses. I am not 
a fan Microsoft or Apple, et al. I am a fan FreeBSD and Linux. However I 
do not believe all closed source or proprietary software is wrong or evil.


I am working my way through the book you suggested. But so far I fail to 
see where it makes the argument for the GPL and against permissive licenses.


For the record. I am not a professional programmer. All software I am 
working on if I were to release it (or when) will be under a permissive 
license, unless it is a port of GPLd software. I am not in the business 
of software. I am an empowered user. Open source software empowers me 
more the proprietary software. Permissively licensed software empowers 
me more than GPLd software**. That is not currently the case for 
everyone and every situation. One day it we may come closer to that 
being true. But it takes time. And it takes proper motivation and 
resources.


**There are many situations that I cannot use GPLd source, but can use 
permissively licensed source. MIT/BSD empowers where, GPL does not. Here 
in this community, with this software. GPL is a no go. It is a show 
stopper. MIT/BSD is welcomed and wanted. Many other communities are 
likewise.


As I said, we will have to agree to disagree. I doubt that anything 
above persuades you in any way.


Regardless, I wish you well and have a great day!

Jimmie





On 09/21/2017 10:39 AM, Jose San Leandro wrote:
I personally don't care about the interests of big corporations 
cheating with end-users' rights. If they were my potential customers, 
or any intermediary which is afraid of not being able to do business 
with them due to their obsession with restricting end-users' rights, 
then I'd probably have a conflict of interest. In that case, I could 
think of sacrificing ethics for food temporarily. But I'm not in that 
business, and I don't want to.


I won't blame the GPL instead of the "old culture" of doing business 
by forcing customers to do only what you want them to do, and make 
them pay for any upgrade some of them could do themselves otherwise.


Distributing works with GPL restricts the options to other developers 
using your product or library. No doubt about that. But ethically, 
that "freedom" only helps the old model of doing software. All 
software should be GPLd in the first place.


There's a book that indirectly illustrates my point, and one I 
enthusiastically recommend: Badass users [1].


Anyway, we could go on and on. It's a matter of pragmatism vs ethics 
of software.


Usually, people sharing your "classic" point of view of the business 
of software don't understand why people write free software and give 
it for free.

Is that your case?

[1] http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920036593.do

2017-09-21 17:16 GMT+02:00 Jimmie Houchin >:


On 09/21/2017 09:47 AM, Ben Coman wrote:

[SNIP]
Its horses for courses.  No one viewpoint fits all circumstances.
Another way to look at it is that permissive licenses give a
developer more freedom to combine libraries with different licenses.

I do like this radical simplification I bumped into...
"Another way of looking at it is that you’re picking a license
based on what you are afraid of.
* The MIT license is if you’re afraid no one will use your code;
you’re making the licensing as short and non-intimidating as
possible.
* The Apache License you are somewhat afraid of no one using your
code, but you are also afraid of legal ambiguity and patent trolls.
* With the GPL licenses, you are afraid of someone else profiting
from your work [or profiting off end-users] (and ambiguity, and
patent trolls)."
[https://exygy.com/which-license-should-i-use-mit-vs-apache-vs-gpl
]

...which aligns squarely with Pharo - our greater fear is people
not using it.


I think the GPL one looks right. Fear, anger, offense if someone
has the possibility of using their software and not contributing
back. To me I think it doesn't work as much as they think. It
doesn't take into account the free will of people to walk away and
completely not use their software. I personally don't even look at
GPL licensed sources unless there are none other available which
is very rare. I

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

2017-09-21 Thread Jose San Leandro

I personally don't care about the interests of big corporations cheating
with end-users' rights. If they were my potential customers, or any
intermediary which is afraid of not being able to do business with them due
to their obsession with restricting end-users' rights, then I'd probably
have a conflict of interest. In that case, I could think of sacrificing
ethics for food temporarily. But I'm not in that business, and I don't want
to.

I won't blame the GPL instead of the "old culture" of doing business by
forcing customers to do only what you want them to do, and make them pay
for any upgrade some of them could do themselves otherwise.

Distributing works with GPL restricts the options to other developers using
your product or library. No doubt about that. But ethically, that "freedom"
only helps the old model of doing software. All software should be GPLd in
the first place.

There's a book that indirectly illustrates my point, and one I
enthusiastically recommend: Badass users [1].

Anyway, we could go on and on. It's a matter of pragmatism vs ethics of
software.

Usually, people sharing your "classic" point of view of the business of
software don't understand why people write free software and give it for
free.
Is that your case?

[1] http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920036593.do

2017-09-21 17:16 GMT+02:00 Jimmie Houchin :

> On 09/21/2017 09:47 AM, Ben Coman wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
> Its horses for courses.  No one viewpoint fits all circumstances. Another
> way to look at it is that permissive licenses give a developer more freedom
> to combine libraries with different licenses.
>
> I do like this radical simplification I bumped into...
> "Another way of looking at it is that you’re picking a license based on
> what you are afraid of.
> * The MIT license is if you’re afraid no one will use your code; you’re
> making the licensing as short and non-intimidating as possible.
> * The Apache License you are somewhat afraid of no one using your code,
> but you are also afraid of legal ambiguity and patent trolls.
> * With the GPL licenses, you are afraid of someone else profiting from
> your work [or profiting off end-users] (and ambiguity, and patent trolls)."
> [https://exygy.com/which-license-should-i-use-mit-vs-apache-vs-gpl]
>
> ...which aligns squarely with Pharo - our greater fear is people not using
> it.
>
>
> I think the GPL one looks right. Fear, anger, offense if someone has the
> possibility of using their software and not contributing back. To me I
> think it doesn't work as much as they think. It doesn't take into account
> the free will of people to walk away and completely not use their software.
> I personally don't even look at GPL licensed sources unless there are none
> other available which is very rare. I don't want the knowledge or
> understanding of that code tainting other code I write.
>
> MIT often means, we don't care, do what you want, just don't blame us.
> We don't care if you take it and use it in closed source proprietary money
> making big corp software.
> We don't care if you take it and use it and keep it to yourself.
> We don't care ... Just don't blame us for any problems.
>
> However, we would love your buy in on open source philosophy and
> contribute back where you are able. We understand you have software which
> is business critical, proprietary and can not be open sourced. We also know
> that you probably have software which has no business specific (your
> business) code which is releasable. And we see many, many, big and small
> businesses doing so today. Close off what you must, open what you can.
>
> I don't think most of us are afraid of no one using our code. PostgreSQL
> has no such fear. SQLite which is public domain has no such fear. And we
> could go on and on. Python, etc...
>
> I personally am very much in the camp of I want people to contribute
> because they want to contribute. Not because I have a stick called the GPL.
> But rather because I have the carrot of all of the benefits derived from
> open source software. I am carrot oriented, not stick oriented.
>
> Jimmie
>
>
>

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

2017-09-21 Thread Herby Vojčík


Jimmie Houchin wrote:

You say it defends rights. It just removed my right to license my
software how I wish. The only way to preserve that option is to not use
GPL software.

Now, should I choose to not use GPL software. How has that benefited
anybody in the GPL ecosystem? Not at all.

We like to talk about the bad big corporation stealing our hard work and
our software and making millions of dollars. Yes big corp. prefers
MIT/BSD. They also prefer to release their own hard work and dollars as
MIT/BSD licensed software. It isn't as if it is all take on big
corporation's side. They prefer the permissive license both as author
and user.

MIT/BSD simply says you the user may do anything you want. Just don't
blame me (author) for anything. And give author(s) credit for what they
have created.

I would rather have people, businesses believe in open source software
and use and release open source software because they are believers and
not because some license forced them to do so. That is how MIT/BSD
software is. And in reality it is how all authors of open source
software are regardless of license. They do it because the believe in
it. It is wrong to think that MIT authors don't believe in the freedoms
of open source software. We do. We want the user to reciprocate because
they believe, not because we forced them. You can't force anybody. They
always have the choice of choosing something different, or writing it
themselves.


+1


Jimmie


Herby

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

2017-09-21 Thread Jimmie Houchin


On 09/21/2017 09:47 AM, Ben Coman wrote:

[SNIP]
Its horses for courses.  No one viewpoint fits all circumstances. 
Another way to look at it is that permissive licenses give a developer 
more freedom to combine libraries with different licenses.


I do like this radical simplification I bumped into...
"Another way of looking at it is that you’re picking a license based 
on what you are afraid of.
* The MIT license is if you’re afraid no one will use your code; 
you’re making the licensing as short and non-intimidating as possible.
* The Apache License you are somewhat afraid of no one using your 
code, but you are also afraid of legal ambiguity and patent trolls.
* With the GPL licenses, you are afraid of someone else profiting from 
your work [or profiting off end-users] (and ambiguity, and patent 
trolls)." 
[https://exygy.com/which-license-should-i-use-mit-vs-apache-vs-gpl]


...which aligns squarely with Pharo - our greater fear is people not 
using it.


I think the GPL one looks right. Fear, anger, offense if someone has the 
possibility of using their software and not contributing back. To me I 
think it doesn't work as much as they think. It doesn't take into 
account the free will of people to walk away and completely not use 
their software. I personally don't even look at GPL licensed sources 
unless there are none other available which is very rare. I don't want 
the knowledge or understanding of that code tainting other code I write.


MIT often means, we don't care, do what you want, just don't blame us.
We don't care if you take it and use it in closed source proprietary 
money making big corp software.

We don't care if you take it and use it and keep it to yourself.
We don't care ... Just don't blame us for any problems.

However, we would love your buy in on open source philosophy and 
contribute back where you are able. We understand you have software 
which is business critical, proprietary and can not be open sourced. We 
also know that you probably have software which has no business specific 
(your business) code which is releasable. And we see many, many, big and 
small businesses doing so today. Close off what you must, open what you can.


I don't think most of us are afraid of no one using our code. PostgreSQL 
has no such fear. SQLite which is public domain has no such fear. And we 
could go on and on. Python, etc...


I personally am very much in the camp of I want people to contribute 
because they want to contribute. Not because I have a stick called the 
GPL. But rather because I have the carrot of all of the benefits derived 
from open source software. I am carrot oriented, not stick oriented.


Jimmie

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

2017-09-21 Thread Ben Coman

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:57 AM, Jose San Leandro 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I was afraid this would hijack the thread, and didn't want to.
>

No worries. Its pertinent to the topic. Licensing is a bit arcane and
various viewpoints are useful.

I support FSF ideals (I have a hardcopy of Stallman's book [
http://a.co/aso0v7W])
and believe the GPL is appropriate for a lot of software - particularly
off-the-shelf / end-user oriented software, but less appropriate for
bespoke software written under contract for a specific company, (e.g. their
business web site) which is the market Pharo is hoping its user-developers
succeed.
[
http://ballardchalmers.com/2016/03/27/bespoke-software-outgunning-off-the-shelf-software/
]

I don't like these metaphors, and my attempt to answer your question may be
> better, or less obvious, but I think "viral" and "infection" only describe
> the GPL when your mindset does not care about the freedoms the GPL tries to
> preserve.
>

The essential MIT/GPL license differences is how they treat free-riders and
downstream user rights. You seem concerned with the latter, which is why
the GPL is suited for end-user / packaged / off-the-shelf software.  But
Pharo's user-developers don't control the views of the companies they
contract to, and forcing the GPL as the only licensing option may have a
chilling effect on the ability gain engagements.  So the Pharo mindset is
to preserve the freedom of its user-developer's to negotiate the terms of
their contracts with their clients.

>From that position, what makes the GPL viral is the clause "You may convey
a work based on the Program ... provided that you ... license the entire
work, as a whole."

So I have the freedom to distribute an application combining three
libraries with separate MIT, BSD and Apache licenses while maintaining
those original licenses. But add a GPL library, and now my application must
distribute the other three libraries also under the GPL. Thats viral.

> I'd say "effective against people trying to restrict the rights the GPL
> defends" instead of "viral".
>

Sorry to be glib, but viral is a lot simpler (for those of a certain
mindset).

> The "infection" interpretation comes from the idea that the GPL restricts
> freedom, which is a trap. We may be used not to care about certain rights,
> or think they are secondary or even worthless. Then, when the GPL forces us
> not to restrict those rights, and we still don't care about what the GPL is
> trying to protect, we can conclude the GPL is a dangerous infection that
> restricts our freedom of choice.
>

GPL is a mechanism to defend users. Software vendors used to limit users'
> rights obviously get their "rights" limited. The GPL does not respect the
> right to restrict others' rights.
>

Its horses for courses.  No one viewpoint fits all circumstances. Another
way to look at it is that permissive licenses give a developer more freedom
to combine libraries with different licenses.

I do like this radical simplification I bumped into...
"Another way of looking at it is that you’re picking a license based on
what you are afraid of.
* The MIT license is if you’re afraid no one will use your code; you’re
making the licensing as short and non-intimidating as possible.
* The Apache License you are somewhat afraid of no one using your code, but
you are also afraid of legal ambiguity and patent trolls.
* With the GPL licenses, you are afraid of someone else profiting from your
work [or profiting off end-users] (and ambiguity, and patent trolls)." [
https://exygy.com/which-license-should-i-use-mit-vs-apache-vs-gpl]

...which aligns squarely with Pharo - our greater fear is people not using
it.

>
> Anyway, I'm not here to judge. MIT may be the most convenient license for
> Pharo nowadays. I'm not discussing that. I just couldn't remain silent
> thinking there's an obvious consensus that GPL is "viral" or an "infection"
> and that should be avoided at all costs.
>

cool.
cheers -ben

>
> 2017-09-20 21:30 GMT+02:00 Jimmie Houchin :
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> As the person who initially used the word viral in this thread, let me
>> ask you a question.
>>
>> Personally I greatly dislike the GPL and variants. I and many believe
>> viral is what describes that nature of the GPL. However, I recognize that
>> there are reasonable people who like the GPL and greatly like that aspect
>> of its license. It is viral and does infect. It is seen by many people
>> something to avoid, just as one would avoid a virus or infection. Yes these
>> are negative terms.
>>
>> You protest our use of these terms but do not offer alternatives that you
>> prefer. In the absence of acceptable alternatives that GPL proponents
>> prefer, then we left to terms that we naturally gravitate toward using. So
>> let me suggest that when you make your opinion heard, please include what
>> you would prefer. Otherwise it doesn't really help you with your expressed
>> desires of us not

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

2017-09-20 Thread Jimmie Houchin

Please, feel free to participate. You are not hijacking anything, you 
are voicing your opinion and participating in the community. This is 
good. We don't all have to have the same opinion or values. People 
expressing their opinion is a valuable part of any community. We may 
agree or disagree, but it helps in understanding each other.


Here is how I view this.

GPL restricts my rights as a "user" to preserve the rights of the 
author. I (author) do not want you (user) to use my software in any way 
that I (author) do not approve of.


GPL is viral. It is not viral because of what it wants to preserve. It 
is viral because in many cases it compels (forces) users to change the 
license of the software in their system to the GPL. This is why Pharo 
can not use GPL. Because it would force all of Pharo to become GPL. This 
is expressly what the authors of the GPL wanted. It is expressly what 
the authors of Pharo do not want.


It is viral because of what it does, how it behaves, what it forces. Not 
because of what it preserves. The viral nature isn't preserving the 
original GPL software, but rather infecting somebody else's software. 
Which is why I asked my question. If I ported GPL software would that 
license affect anything more than what I wrote. The most common answer 
was YES. It would affect everything or infect everything.


I don't care about a small piece being GPL. I care about how it impacts 
the bigger piece.


You say it defends rights. It just removed my right to license my 
software how I wish. The only way to preserve that option is to not use 
GPL software.


Now, should I choose to not use GPL software. How has that benefited 
anybody in the GPL ecosystem? Not at all.


We like to talk about the bad big corporation stealing our hard work and 
our software and making millions of dollars. Yes big corp. prefers 
MIT/BSD. They also prefer to release their own hard work and dollars as 
MIT/BSD licensed software. It isn't as if it is all take on big 
corporation's side. They prefer the permissive license both as author 
and user.


MIT/BSD simply says you the user may do anything you want. Just don't 
blame me (author) for anything. And give author(s) credit for what they 
have created.


I would rather have people, businesses believe in open source software 
and use and release open source software because they are believers and 
not because some license forced them to do so. That is how MIT/BSD 
software is. And in reality it is how all authors of open source 
software are regardless of license. They do it because the believe in 
it. It is wrong to think that MIT authors don't believe in the freedoms 
of open source software. We do. We want the user to reciprocate because 
they believe, not because we forced them. You can't force anybody. They 
always have the choice of choosing something different, or writing it 
themselves.


Enough rambling. Even though we very much disagree. Do not be silent. 
Participate. We all learn.


Jimmie



On 09/20/2017 02:57 PM, Jose San Leandro wrote:

Hi,

I was afraid this would hijack the thread, and didn't want to.

I don't like these metaphors, and my attempt to answer your question 
may be better, or less obvious, but I think "viral" and "infection" 
only describe the GPL when your mindset does not care about the 
freedoms the GPL tries to preserve.
I'd say "effective against people trying to restrict the rights the 
GPL defends" instead of "viral".
The "infection" interpretation comes from the idea that the GPL 
restricts freedom, which is a trap. We may be used not to care about 
certain rights, or think they are secondary or even worthless. Then, 
when the GPL forces us not to restrict those rights, and we still 
don't care about what the GPL is trying to protect, we can conclude 
the GPL is a dangerous infection that restricts our freedom of choice.
GPL is a mechanism to defend users. Software vendors used to limit 
users' rights obviously get their "rights" limited. The GPL does not 
respect the right to restrict others' rights.


Anyway, I'm not here to judge. MIT may be the most convenient license 
for Pharo nowadays. I'm not discussing that. I just couldn't remain 
silent thinking there's an obvious consensus that GPL is "viral" or an 
"infection" and that should be avoided at all costs.


2017-09-20 21:30 GMT+02:00 Jimmie Houchin >:


Hello,

As the person who initially used the word viral in this thread,
let me ask you a question.

Personally I greatly dislike the GPL and variants. I and many
believe viral is what describes that nature of the GPL. However, I
recognize that there are reasonable people who like the GPL and
greatly like that aspect of its license. It is viral and does
infect. It is seen by many people something to avoid, just as one
would avoid a virus or infection. Yes these are negative terms.

You protest our use of these terms but do

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

2017-09-20 Thread Jose San Leandro

Hi,

I was afraid this would hijack the thread, and didn't want to.

I don't like these metaphors, and my attempt to answer your question may be
better, or less obvious, but I think "viral" and "infection" only describe
the GPL when your mindset does not care about the freedoms the GPL tries to
preserve.
I'd say "effective against people trying to restrict the rights the GPL
defends" instead of "viral".
The "infection" interpretation comes from the idea that the GPL restricts
freedom, which is a trap. We may be used not to care about certain rights,
or think they are secondary or even worthless. Then, when the GPL forces us
not to restrict those rights, and we still don't care about what the GPL is
trying to protect, we can conclude the GPL is a dangerous infection that
restricts our freedom of choice.
GPL is a mechanism to defend users. Software vendors used to limit users'
rights obviously get their "rights" limited. The GPL does not respect the
right to restrict others' rights.

Anyway, I'm not here to judge. MIT may be the most convenient license for
Pharo nowadays. I'm not discussing that. I just couldn't remain silent
thinking there's an obvious consensus that GPL is "viral" or an "infection"
and that should be avoided at all costs.

2017-09-20 21:30 GMT+02:00 Jimmie Houchin :

> Hello,
>
> As the person who initially used the word viral in this thread, let me ask
> you a question.
>
> Personally I greatly dislike the GPL and variants. I and many believe
> viral is what describes that nature of the GPL. However, I recognize that
> there are reasonable people who like the GPL and greatly like that aspect
> of its license. It is viral and does infect. It is seen by many people
> something to avoid, just as one would avoid a virus or infection. Yes these
> are negative terms.
>
> You protest our use of these terms but do not offer alternatives that you
> prefer. In the absence of acceptable alternatives that GPL proponents
> prefer, then we left to terms that we naturally gravitate toward using. So
> let me suggest that when you make your opinion heard, please include what
> you would prefer. Otherwise it doesn't really help you with your expressed
> desires of us not using said terminology.
>
> So my question to you. What words would you use instead of viral and
> infection that equally describe that characteristic of the GPL and variants?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jimmie
>
> On 09/20/2017 02:10 PM, Jose San Leandro wrote:
>
> Nothing to add to the particular question, but I'm writing to express how
> much I disagree when you use adjectives such as "viral" or nouns such as
> "infection" to describe GPL.
>
> I'm a FSF supporter for a long time, and while I'm used to people choosing
> not to use free software licenses for the sake of reaching as many business
> opportunities as possible, I care about the ethics behind the free software
> movement.
>
> I respect people not caring about that fundamental part of the Free
> Software movement, but I cannot remain silent when everybody seems to share
> the same unfortunate interpretation of what the GPL is about.
>
> 2017-09-17 18:59 GMT+02:00 Ben Coman :
>
>> On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 7:00 PM, stephan  wrote:
>> >
>> > On 17-09-17 06:59, Jimmie Houchin wrote:
>> >>
>> >> And the GPL not be viral in my app provided I only use the GPL library
>> and am not modifying it in my app.
>> >>
>> >> Do I understand this wrong?
>> >
>> >
>> > Yes. With GPL everything is now GPL. With LGPL, as long as you only
>> link to it,
>> > the viral aspect is limited to the library. In Pharo, that means you
>> can use UFFI
>> > to connect to LGPL libraries, and you can probably create plugins.
>> Loading
>> > smalltalk libraries that are LGPL is not exactly the same as linking,
>> there is
>> > no clear boundary between compile-time and run-time, as everything is
>> in the image.
>> > That makes the LGPL difficult to interpret in the smalltalk case, and
>> potentially viral.
>>
>> +1.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Hilaire  wrote:
>> > Regarding porting GPL software, I guess you mean rewriting with
>> Smalltalk,
>> > you should be free to license it as you want, for example as MIT.
>> > AFAIK there is no evil restriction as "seen the code" under the GPL.
>>
>> It is not as clean as that.  Many consider "seen the code" to
>> implicate "derived code".  Whether a court of law agrees with this or
>> not is not what you should consider.   The best advice I received from
>> a lawyer is that winning in court (sometimes after years of effort) is
>> still a loss, so you should position yourself so that no one even
>> thinks they can take you court.
>>
>>
>> > For library, alternative is LGPL and I read this interesting note:
>> > One should note that subclassing a Java (or other OO) class licensed
>> under the LGPL is regarded as a use of an interface of a library comparable
>> to a function call of a library.

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

2017-09-20 Thread Sven Van Caekenberghe


> On 20 Sep 2017, at 21:10, Jose San Leandro  wrote:
> 
> Nothing to add to the particular question, but I'm writing to express how 
> much I disagree when you use adjectives such as "viral" or nouns such as 
> "infection" to describe GPL.
> 
> I'm a FSF supporter for a long time, and while I'm used to people choosing 
> not to use free software licenses for the sake of reaching as many business 
> opportunities as possible, I care about the ethics behind the free software 
> movement.
> 
> I respect people not caring about that fundamental part of the Free Software 
> movement, but I cannot remain silent when everybody seems to share the same 
> unfortunate interpretation of what the GPL is about.

I agree, well said.

On ethical grounds I would certainly choose a modern GPL (like AGPLv3). I want 
my work to benefit the public and remain like that. The fact that someone can 
take it and sell it goes against the idea of open source.

But for a Smalltalk system aiming to commercial use, MIT is the only way 
forward.

> 2017-09-17 18:59 GMT+02:00 Ben Coman :
> On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 7:00 PM, stephan  wrote:
> >
> > On 17-09-17 06:59, Jimmie Houchin wrote:
> >>
> >> And the GPL not be viral in my app provided I only use the GPL library and 
> >> am not modifying it in my app.
> >>
> >> Do I understand this wrong?
> >
> >
> > Yes. With GPL everything is now GPL. With LGPL, as long as you only link to 
> > it,
> > the viral aspect is limited to the library. In Pharo, that means you can 
> > use UFFI
> > to connect to LGPL libraries, and you can probably create plugins. Loading
> > smalltalk libraries that are LGPL is not exactly the same as linking, there 
> > is
> > no clear boundary between compile-time and run-time, as everything is in 
> > the image.
> > That makes the LGPL difficult to interpret in the smalltalk case, and 
> > potentially viral.
> 
> +1.
> 
> 
> On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Hilaire  wrote:
> > Regarding porting GPL software, I guess you mean rewriting with Smalltalk,
> > you should be free to license it as you want, for example as MIT.
> > AFAIK there is no evil restriction as "seen the code" under the GPL.
> 
> It is not as clean as that.  Many consider "seen the code" to
> implicate "derived code".  Whether a court of law agrees with this or
> not is not what you should consider.   The best advice I received from
> a lawyer is that winning in court (sometimes after years of effort) is
> still a loss, so you should position yourself so that no one even
> thinks they can take you court.
> 
> 
> > For library, alternative is LGPL and I read this interesting note:
> > One should note that subclassing a Java (or other OO) class licensed under 
> > the LGPL is regarded as a use of an interface of a library comparable to a 
> > function call of a library. It is not regarded as a modification of the 
> > original class. Therefore the subclass does not fall under the requirements 
> > of the LGPL.
> 
> The definitive reference of Java + LGPL is
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.en.html
> which says: "The typical arrangement for Java is that each library an
> application uses is distributed as a separate JAR (Java Archive) file.
> Applications use Java's “import” functionality to access classes from
> these libraries ... The LGPL permits this distribution ...
> Applications need only follow the requirements in section 6 of the
> LGPL"
> 
> but a Smalltalk Image runs foul of section 6 requiring... "A suitable
> [shared library] mechanism ... that (1) uses at run time a copy of the
> library already present on the user's computer system, rather than
> copying library functions into the executable"  where an Image is
> considered to be the "executable".
> 
> So incorporating LGPL Smalltalk code into an Image causes all code in
> the Image to be infected with the LGPL.
> 
> 
> > So using a LGPL library, even extending it, does not force the user to be 
> > in the GPL family license.
> 
> Using LGPL C libraries is fine and doesn't infect your Smalltalk code.
> Using LGPL Smalltalk libraries does infect all Smalltalk code in your
> Image. The concern is contributing a bug fixed in Pharo code from an
> infected image technically infects the  whole of Pharo - although you
> are free to update a clean image with the same bug fix and contribute
> from there - but thats an awkward process.
> 
> 
> > The only restriction is the receiver should be capable to update
> > the LGPL package independently of the application using the package.
> > Anyway, I don't think you should worried about porting GPL/LGPL libraries 
> > as long
> > as your are rewriting it. You can license it under MIT. Then LGPL is also 
> > possible.
> 
> The term "port" clearly implies "derived" so you cannot arbitrarily
> re-license just by changing implementation languages. Otherwise for
> example a GPL library could be relicensed by one team

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

2017-09-20 Thread Jimmie Houchin

Hello,

As the person who initially used the word viral in this thread, let me 
ask you a question.

Personally I greatly dislike the GPL and variants. I and many believe 
viral is what describes that nature of the GPL. However, I recognize 
that there are reasonable people who like the GPL and greatly like that 
aspect of its license. It is viral and does infect. It is seen by many 
people something to avoid, just as one would avoid a virus or infection. 
Yes these are negative terms.

You protest our use of these terms but do not offer alternatives that 
you prefer. In the absence of acceptable alternatives that GPL 
proponents prefer, then we left to terms that we naturally gravitate 
toward using. So let me suggest that when you make your opinion heard, 
please include what you would prefer. Otherwise it doesn't really help 
you with your expressed desires of us not using said terminology.

So my question to you. What words would you use instead of viral and 
infection that equally describe that characteristic of the GPL and variants?

Thanks.

Jimmie

On 09/20/2017 02:10 PM, Jose San Leandro wrote:
Nothing to add to the particular question, but I'm writing to express 
how much I disagree when you use adjectives such as "viral" or nouns 
such as "infection" to describe GPL.

I'm a FSF supporter for a long time, and while I'm used to people 
choosing not to use free software licenses for the sake of reaching as 
many business opportunities as possible, I care about the ethics 
behind the free software movement.

I respect people not caring about that fundamental part of the Free 
Software movement, but I cannot remain silent when everybody seems to 
share the same unfortunate interpretation of what the GPL is about.

2017-09-17 18:59 GMT+02:00 Ben Coman >:

On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 7:00 PM, stephan > wrote:
>
> On 17-09-17 06:59, Jimmie Houchin wrote:
>>
>> And the GPL not be viral in my app provided I only use the GPL
library and am not modifying it in my app.
>>
>> Do I understand this wrong?
>
>
> Yes. With GPL everything is now GPL. With LGPL, as long as you
only link to it,
> the viral aspect is limited to the library. In Pharo, that means
you can use UFFI
> to connect to LGPL libraries, and you can probably create
plugins. Loading
> smalltalk libraries that are LGPL is not exactly the same as
linking, there is
> no clear boundary between compile-time and run-time, as
everything is in the image.
> That makes the LGPL difficult to interpret in the smalltalk
case, and potentially viral.

+1.

On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Hilaire > wrote:
> Regarding porting GPL software, I guess you mean rewriting with
Smalltalk,
> you should be free to license it as you want, for example as MIT.
> AFAIK there is no evil restriction as "seen the code" under the GPL.

It is not as clean as that.  Many consider "seen the code" to
implicate "derived code".  Whether a court of law agrees with this or
not is not what you should consider.   The best advice I received from
a lawyer is that winning in court (sometimes after years of effort) is
still a loss, so you should position yourself so that no one even
thinks they can take you court.

> For library, alternative is LGPL and I read this interesting note:
> One should note that subclassing a Java (or other OO) class
licensed under the LGPL is regarded as a use of an interface of a
library comparable to a function call of a library. It is not
regarded as a modification of the original class. Therefore the
subclass does not fall under the requirements of the LGPL.

The definitive reference of Java + LGPL is
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.en.html

which says: "The typical arrangement for Java is that each library an
application uses is distributed as a separate JAR (Java Archive) file.
Applications use Java's “import” functionality to access classes from
these libraries ... The LGPL permits this distribution ...
Applications need only follow the requirements in section 6 of the
LGPL"

but a Smalltalk Image runs foul of section 6 requiring... "A suitable
[shared library] mechanism ... that (1) uses at run time a copy of the
library already present on the user's computer system, rather than
copying library functions into the executable"  where an Image is
considered to be the "executable".

So incorporating LGPL Smalltalk code into an Image causes all code in
the Image to be infected with the LGPL.

> So using a LGPL library, even extending it, does not force the
user to be in the GPL family license.

Using LGPL C libraries is

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

2017-09-20 Thread Jose San Leandro

Nothing to add to the particular question, but I'm writing to express how
much I disagree when you use adjectives such as "viral" or nouns such as
"infection" to describe GPL.

I'm a FSF supporter for a long time, and while I'm used to people choosing
not to use free software licenses for the sake of reaching as many business
opportunities as possible, I care about the ethics behind the free software
movement.

I respect people not caring about that fundamental part of the Free
Software movement, but I cannot remain silent when everybody seems to share
the same unfortunate interpretation of what the GPL is about.

2017-09-17 18:59 GMT+02:00 Ben Coman :

> On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 7:00 PM, stephan  wrote:
> >
> > On 17-09-17 06:59, Jimmie Houchin wrote:
> >>
> >> And the GPL not be viral in my app provided I only use the GPL library
> and am not modifying it in my app.
> >>
> >> Do I understand this wrong?
> >
> >
> > Yes. With GPL everything is now GPL. With LGPL, as long as you only link
> to it,
> > the viral aspect is limited to the library. In Pharo, that means you can
> use UFFI
> > to connect to LGPL libraries, and you can probably create plugins.
> Loading
> > smalltalk libraries that are LGPL is not exactly the same as linking,
> there is
> > no clear boundary between compile-time and run-time, as everything is in
> the image.
> > That makes the LGPL difficult to interpret in the smalltalk case, and
> potentially viral.
>
> +1.
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Hilaire  wrote:
> > Regarding porting GPL software, I guess you mean rewriting with
> Smalltalk,
> > you should be free to license it as you want, for example as MIT.
> > AFAIK there is no evil restriction as "seen the code" under the GPL.
>
> It is not as clean as that.  Many consider "seen the code" to
> implicate "derived code".  Whether a court of law agrees with this or
> not is not what you should consider.   The best advice I received from
> a lawyer is that winning in court (sometimes after years of effort) is
> still a loss, so you should position yourself so that no one even
> thinks they can take you court.
>
>
> > For library, alternative is LGPL and I read this interesting note:
> > One should note that subclassing a Java (or other OO) class licensed
> under the LGPL is regarded as a use of an interface of a library comparable
> to a function call of a library. It is not regarded as a modification of
> the original class. Therefore the subclass does not fall under the
> requirements of the LGPL.
>
> The definitive reference of Java + LGPL is
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.en.html
> which says: "The typical arrangement for Java is that each library an
> application uses is distributed as a separate JAR (Java Archive) file.
> Applications use Java's “import” functionality to access classes from
> these libraries ... The LGPL permits this distribution ...
> Applications need only follow the requirements in section 6 of the
> LGPL"
>
> but a Smalltalk Image runs foul of section 6 requiring... "A suitable
> [shared library] mechanism ... that (1) uses at run time a copy of the
> library already present on the user's computer system, rather than
> copying library functions into the executable"  where an Image is
> considered to be the "executable".
>
> So incorporating LGPL Smalltalk code into an Image causes all code in
> the Image to be infected with the LGPL.
>
>
> > So using a LGPL library, even extending it, does not force the user to
> be in the GPL family license.
>
> Using LGPL C libraries is fine and doesn't infect your Smalltalk code.
> Using LGPL Smalltalk libraries does infect all Smalltalk code in your
> Image. The concern is contributing a bug fixed in Pharo code from an
> infected image technically infects the  whole of Pharo - although you
> are free to update a clean image with the same bug fix and contribute
> from there - but thats an awkward process.
>
>
> > The only restriction is the receiver should be capable to update
> > the LGPL package independently of the application using the package.
> > Anyway, I don't think you should worried about porting GPL/LGPL
> libraries as long
> > as your are rewriting it. You can license it under MIT. Then LGPL is
> also possible.
>
> The term "port" clearly implies "derived" so you cannot arbitrarily
> re-license just by changing implementation languages. Otherwise for
> example a GPL library could be relicensed by one team porting from C
> to Python, then a second independent team ports from Python back to C
> subverting the original copyright.
>
>
> ===
> Hmmm... actually refreshing myself with the newer license texts just now
> I notice GPL 3 has added some interesting definitions the GPL 2 lacks...
>
> >  The “Corresponding Source” for a work ... does not include the work's
> System Libraries
> >
> > The “System Libraries” of an executable work include anything, other
> than the work as a

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

2017-09-17 Thread Ben Coman

On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 7:00 PM, stephan  wrote:
>
> On 17-09-17 06:59, Jimmie Houchin wrote:
>>
>> And the GPL not be viral in my app provided I only use the GPL library and 
>> am not modifying it in my app.
>>
>> Do I understand this wrong?
>
>
> Yes. With GPL everything is now GPL. With LGPL, as long as you only link to 
> it,
> the viral aspect is limited to the library. In Pharo, that means you can use 
> UFFI
> to connect to LGPL libraries, and you can probably create plugins. Loading
> smalltalk libraries that are LGPL is not exactly the same as linking, there is
> no clear boundary between compile-time and run-time, as everything is in the 
> image.
> That makes the LGPL difficult to interpret in the smalltalk case, and 
> potentially viral.

+1.

On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Hilaire  wrote:
> Regarding porting GPL software, I guess you mean rewriting with Smalltalk,
> you should be free to license it as you want, for example as MIT.
> AFAIK there is no evil restriction as "seen the code" under the GPL.

It is not as clean as that.  Many consider "seen the code" to
implicate "derived code".  Whether a court of law agrees with this or
not is not what you should consider.   The best advice I received from
a lawyer is that winning in court (sometimes after years of effort) is
still a loss, so you should position yourself so that no one even
thinks they can take you court.

> For library, alternative is LGPL and I read this interesting note:
> One should note that subclassing a Java (or other OO) class licensed under 
> the LGPL is regarded as a use of an interface of a library comparable to a 
> function call of a library. It is not regarded as a modification of the 
> original class. Therefore the subclass does not fall under the requirements 
> of the LGPL.

The definitive reference of Java + LGPL is
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.en.html
which says: "The typical arrangement for Java is that each library an
application uses is distributed as a separate JAR (Java Archive) file.
Applications use Java's “import” functionality to access classes from
these libraries ... The LGPL permits this distribution ...
Applications need only follow the requirements in section 6 of the
LGPL"

but a Smalltalk Image runs foul of section 6 requiring... "A suitable
[shared library] mechanism ... that (1) uses at run time a copy of the
library already present on the user's computer system, rather than
copying library functions into the executable"  where an Image is
considered to be the "executable".

So incorporating LGPL Smalltalk code into an Image causes all code in
the Image to be infected with the LGPL.

> So using a LGPL library, even extending it, does not force the user to be in 
> the GPL family license.

Using LGPL C libraries is fine and doesn't infect your Smalltalk code.
Using LGPL Smalltalk libraries does infect all Smalltalk code in your
Image. The concern is contributing a bug fixed in Pharo code from an
infected image technically infects the  whole of Pharo - although you
are free to update a clean image with the same bug fix and contribute
from there - but thats an awkward process.

> The only restriction is the receiver should be capable to update
> the LGPL package independently of the application using the package.
> Anyway, I don't think you should worried about porting GPL/LGPL libraries as 
> long
> as your are rewriting it. You can license it under MIT. Then LGPL is also 
> possible.

The term "port" clearly implies "derived" so you cannot arbitrarily
re-license just by changing implementation languages. Otherwise for
example a GPL library could be relicensed by one team porting from C
to Python, then a second independent team ports from Python back to C
subverting the original copyright.

===
Hmmm... actually refreshing myself with the newer license texts just now
I notice GPL 3 has added some interesting definitions the GPL 2 lacks...

>  The “Corresponding Source” for a work ... does not include the work's System 
> Libraries
>
> The “System Libraries” of an executable work include anything, other than the 
> work as a whole, that
>  (a) is included in the normal form of packaging a Major Component,
> but which is not part of that Major Component, and
>  (b) serves only to enable use of the work with that Major Component, or to 
> implement a
> Standard Interface for which an implementation is available to the public 
> in source code form.
>
>   A “Major Component”, in this context, means a major essential component
>   (kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system (if any)
>   on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to produce the work,
>   or an object code interpreter used to run it.
>
> A “Standard Interface” means an interface that
> ... is widely used among developers working in that language.

which seems to open the door to a strong argument** that Pharo is such
a Major

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

2017-09-17 Thread Dimitris Chloupis

Mr lawyer here
I will give you general direction because in the end it depends in the
national law of the country of the person being sued.

The general idea is that GPL is a license to be avoided if you want real
freedom for your users. That means their ability to open or close code.

A license is in essense a contract that you accept when you click a button,
a link or other means that show clear consent. If the license is not
accepted through the means provided by law then it cannot apply. Also a
license is bound by law and national laws have special legislation of what
contracts can have as terms. Anything that may cause bodily harm for
example or negate the liability for such action are terms in the a contract
that are immediately become invalid and hence they dont apply without
necessarily make the whole contract invalid. Basically means that a license
by itself is powerless and can function only under the permissions of law.

A GPL license is thus a contract, but a GPL license as we all know it,
generally is used as a template. None forces anyone from making a GPL
license that allows the the user to close the code. FSF could sue for the
use of the name on the ground of misleading the user, but the license would
be still valid.

Matter complicate also on the matter of GPL "infection". One licences his
code under MIT but uses GPL licensed libraries, keeping his code open does
not violate GPL but if another user take the code and add his own code to
it and close it , including the GPL license he does violate the GPL license
but does he violate the law ?

My legal opinion on this is that he does not unless there was clear consent
by him on the matter of GPL license, which would require for him to know
that those libraries are used by the MIT code he is using and those
libraries are GPL. Taking into account how messy code bases can  be, good
luck with that.

Again this depends on case and national law , hence why we say always , go
speak with a lawyer of your juridiction , preferably someone who
specialises in contract law. NOT Copyright law. A license has little to do
with ownership , which is what copyright is, its merely a contract trying
to bind you to use the code only in specific ways. Violation of a license
is not a violation of copyright. Again under the exclusion of national
laws, national laws have each their own weirdnesses.

Also another advice, it does not matter if the license is called MIT, GPL,
BSD , BOOGIE , or BIGPINKELEPHANT , the bottom line is that licenses are
contracts and as such as soon as you accept them they are biding to the
extend the law allows them to be binding , as I mentioned earlier

Thus

When we venture into the commercial world and profit is involved, people
who will want a piece of that profit may emerge and use the license against
you. Thus do not accept any license even if it is certified MIT before
giving the text to a lawyer to read it and find any traps , hidden doors or
anything that can put you in a compromising position.

There are even cases when both parties have good intentions yet they
entangle in a legal battle because the license is too vague, confusing or
it does not specify a special case that may apply.

Contracts can be extremely complex entities, even though I am not a
copyright lawyer , I do general practice and martitime law, that Greek Law
and European Law by the way, I know how hairy things can get , especially
with big contracts. I also have a single experience with Copyright of the
code , between an individual and the company and it was very very messy for
both parties. Unfortunately judges still do not understand computers and I
can tell you that also apples to other European countries and the USA
because I have a master degreen on commercial and e-commerce from a UK
uinversity with a disertation "Legal protections against malicious
software". I examined UK, Eurpean and International law for this
dissertation and what I have seen has severely disappointed me how law
professionals, not just judges are so clueless when it comes to technology
and yet are expected to provide fair protection and judgements.

Summary : If you plan to make profit, go talk with your lawyer. If you
intend to make a company a lawyer and an accountant is a MUST HAVE and wil
save you tons of money than they will cost you. Also never wait for the
last second to seek legal advise , in law everything is under a time limit,
you dont want to be late. Trust me ;)

On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 8:01 AM Jimmie Houchin  wrote:

> I understand that Pharo people will in general want to stay away from
> the GPL. I just didn't know if it would potentially be more equivalent
> to how other languages work.
>
> In Python to my understanding I could do something like
>
> #into my MIT licensed app
> import GPL_library
> import MIT_library
>
> And the GPL not be viral in my app provided I only use the GPL library
> and am not modifying it in my app.
>
> Do I

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

2017-09-17 Thread stephan


On 17-09-17 06:59, Jimmie Houchin wrote:
And the GPL not be viral in my app provided I only use the GPL library 
and am not modifying it in my app.


Do I understand this wrong?


Yes. With GPL everything is now GPL. With LGPL, as long as you only link 
to it, the viral aspect is limited to the library. In Pharo, that means 
you can use UFFI to connect to LGPL libraries, and you can probably 
create plugins. Loading smalltalk libraries that are LGPL is not exactly 
the same as linking, there is no clear boundary between compile-time and 
run-time, as everything is in the image. That makes the LGPL difficult 
to interpret in the smalltalk case, and potentially viral.


Stephan

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

2017-09-17 Thread stephan


On 17-09-17 12:09, Hilaire wrote:

For library, alternative is LGPL and I read this interesting note:

One should note that subclassing a Java (or other OO) class licensed
under the LGPL is regarded as a use of an interface of a library
comparable to a function call of a library. It is not regarded as a
modification of the original class. Therefore the subclass does not
fall under the requirements of the LGPL.

So using a LGPL library, even extending it, does not force the user to 
be in the GPL family license.


Loading an LGPL library in a smalltalk image is not linking, in the 
strict interpretation. So no. FSF is aware of this problem


Stephan

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

2017-09-17 Thread Pierce Ng

On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 02:47:16AM +0200, stephan wrote:
> On 16-09-17 18:51, Peter Uhnák wrote:
> >  This is the reason why LGPL exists. LGPL is not contagious.
> 
> It is not clear that that would be the case with smalltalk.
> We tend to reuse by subclassing, and linking is not so
> well-defined. There is no license that has the same effect as
> LGPL has for c programs for smalltalk.

The Common Lisp people have LLGPL:

  http://www.cliki.net/LLGPL
  http://opensource.franz.com/preamble.html

Pierce

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

2017-09-17 Thread Hilaire


Hi Jimmie,

Dr. Geo is distributed under the GPL and shipped with Pharo.

As Pharo is MIT, you can redistribute your whole software under the 
license you want, proprietary or free software ones as GPL.


Regarding porting GPL software, I guess you mean rewriting with 
Smalltalk, you should be free to license it as you want, for example as 
MIT. AFAIK there is no evil restriction as "seen the code" under the GPL.


For library, alternative is LGPL and I read this interesting note:

   One should note that subclassing a Java (or other OO) class licensed
   under the LGPL is regarded as a use of an interface of a library
   comparable to a function call of a library. It is not regarded as a
   modification of the original class. Therefore the subclass does not
   fall under the requirements of the LGPL.

So using a LGPL library, even extending it, does not force the user to 
be in the GPL family license.


The only restriction is the receiver should be capable to update the 
LGPL package independently of the application using the package.


Anyway, I don't think you should worried about porting GPL/LGPL 
libraries as long as your are rewriting it. You can license it under 
MIT. Then LGPL is also possible.



--
Dr. Geo
http://drgeo.eu

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

2017-09-16 Thread Jimmie Houchin

I understand that Pharo people will in general want to stay away from 
the GPL. I just didn't know if it would potentially be more equivalent 
to how other languages work.


In Python to my understanding I could do something like

#into my MIT licensed app
import GPL_library
import MIT_library

And the GPL not be viral in my app provided I only use the GPL library 
and am not modifying it in my app.


Do I understand this wrong?

I haven't yet investigated Pharo 7 yet, so I do not know what would be 
similar to the above.


MyMITClass #initialize
"Install configurationOfGPL package"
self useGPLPackage

Yes it is contrived. But I am trying to see why Pharo would be different?

Both are loading GPL code and running it in a mixed system.

Regarding dual-licensing. I don't think that is likely. Most of these 
people prefer the GPL and use it because they want its viral nature and 
dislike the permissiveness of MIT software. They want to constrain they 
software.


Thanks to all who replied. I just thought I would ask.

Jimmie



On 09/16/2017 02:17 AM, Stephane Ducasse wrote:

I do not think that the bootstrap changed anything. :)
We will stay away from GPL.
May be you can talk to the people of the libraries you want to use and
see if they are interested in a dual license.

Stef

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Jimmie Houchin  wrote:

Hello,

Pharo 7 to my understanding fundamentally changes Pharo. It is my
understanding that Pharo 7 starts with a core Pharo kernel and like many
languages out there, imports or adds code from a variety of external sources
to the image being built.

With that understanding, I am curious if that would allow for inclusion of a
specific library/module to be licensed as GPL? And it not affect the other
code in the composed image?

I am a big believer in the MIT/BSD license and not a big fan of the GPL.
However, there is software out there that I have avoided looking at the
source code or attempting to port it to Pharo because it is GPL. I would
sincerely love if I could now port such a library and license it under the
GPL as required, and it not affect any other code outside of that specific
library.

I am not a lawyer. Nor do I know any lawyers. Is is possible for someone to
get a reasonably definitive answer on this question?

I am sure I am not the only one who has had this desire. I am also sure that
I am not the only one who will have this question in the future. So it would
be nice to have a proper legal response that could possibly be explicitly
stated somewhere on the website or on an FAQ or something.

Regardless of the answer, yes or no. It does need to be a settled issue for
Pharo. That way someone could know if GPL/LGPL or whatever software could be
in the catalog.

Just wanted to put that out there to the community. I look forward to the
answer, should one be or become available.

Thanks.


Jimmie

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

2017-09-16 Thread Peter Uhnák

> someone to get a reasonably definitive answer on this question?

you would get that only from a copyright layer... and definitive answer
only from a judge ;)

I don't see how Pharo bootstrap changes anything. If you mean that you can
now add library after bootstrap... well you can do that now already with
any previous Pharo version.

GPL is viral infection, so if you decide to bundle Pharo with your GPL-ed
code, then the whole package will be terminally infected, including all the
source code. Pharo or any other loaded libraries in the distro will be
considered as GPL. Pharo is under MIT, so you can sublicense it, however if
someone decided to contribute some code to your distribution (even if it
was to Pharo), the contribution would be considered GPL and only the author
would be able to put it to Pharo under the original MIT license.

If you are wondering whether you can distribute Pharo with GPL code linked
to it and keep the rest MIT, then the answer is no (and GPL v3 is
particularly anal about this, as people are trying to work around it with
v2). This is the reason why LGPL exists. LGPL is not contagious.

But again, I don't see how Pharo bootstrap changes any of this.

Peter

On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Stephane Ducasse 
wrote:

> I do not think that the bootstrap changed anything. :)
> We will stay away from GPL.
> May be you can talk to the people of the libraries you want to use and
> see if they are interested in a dual license.
>
> Stef
>
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Jimmie Houchin 
> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Pharo 7 to my understanding fundamentally changes Pharo. It is my
> > understanding that Pharo 7 starts with a core Pharo kernel and like many
> > languages out there, imports or adds code from a variety of external
> sources
> > to the image being built.
> >
> > With that understanding, I am curious if that would allow for inclusion
> of a
> > specific library/module to be licensed as GPL? And it not affect the
> other
> > code in the composed image?
> >
> > I am a big believer in the MIT/BSD license and not a big fan of the GPL.
> > However, there is software out there that I have avoided looking at the
> > source code or attempting to port it to Pharo because it is GPL. I would
> > sincerely love if I could now port such a library and license it under
> the
> > GPL as required, and it not affect any other code outside of that
> specific
> > library.
> >
> > I am not a lawyer. Nor do I know any lawyers. Is is possible for someone
> to
> > get a reasonably definitive answer on this question?
> >
> > I am sure I am not the only one who has had this desire. I am also sure
> that
> > I am not the only one who will have this question in the future. So it
> would
> > be nice to have a proper legal response that could possibly be explicitly
> > stated somewhere on the website or on an FAQ or something.
> >
> > Regardless of the answer, yes or no. It does need to be a settled issue
> for
> > Pharo. That way someone could know if GPL/LGPL or whatever software
> could be
> > in the catalog.
> >
> > Just wanted to put that out there to the community. I look forward to the
> > answer, should one be or become available.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> > Jimmie
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

2017-09-16 Thread Stephane Ducasse

I do not think that the bootstrap changed anything. :)
We will stay away from GPL.
May be you can talk to the people of the libraries you want to use and
see if they are interested in a dual license.

Stef

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Jimmie Houchin  wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Pharo 7 to my understanding fundamentally changes Pharo. It is my
> understanding that Pharo 7 starts with a core Pharo kernel and like many
> languages out there, imports or adds code from a variety of external sources
> to the image being built.
>
> With that understanding, I am curious if that would allow for inclusion of a
> specific library/module to be licensed as GPL? And it not affect the other
> code in the composed image?
>
> I am a big believer in the MIT/BSD license and not a big fan of the GPL.
> However, there is software out there that I have avoided looking at the
> source code or attempting to port it to Pharo because it is GPL. I would
> sincerely love if I could now port such a library and license it under the
> GPL as required, and it not affect any other code outside of that specific
> library.
>
> I am not a lawyer. Nor do I know any lawyers. Is is possible for someone to
> get a reasonably definitive answer on this question?
>
> I am sure I am not the only one who has had this desire. I am also sure that
> I am not the only one who will have this question in the future. So it would
> be nice to have a proper legal response that could possibly be explicitly
> stated somewhere on the website or on an FAQ or something.
>
> Regardless of the answer, yes or no. It does need to be a settled issue for
> Pharo. That way someone could know if GPL/LGPL or whatever software could be
> in the catalog.
>
> Just wanted to put that out there to the community. I look forward to the
> answer, should one be or become available.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> Jimmie
>
>
>

[Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

2017-09-15 Thread Jimmie Houchin


Hello,

Pharo 7 to my understanding fundamentally changes Pharo. It is my 
understanding that Pharo 7 starts with a core Pharo kernel and like many 
languages out there, imports or adds code from a variety of external 
sources to the image being built.


With that understanding, I am curious if that would allow for inclusion 
of a specific library/module to be licensed as GPL? And it not affect 
the other code in the composed image?


I am a big believer in the MIT/BSD license and not a big fan of the GPL. 
However, there is software out there that I have avoided looking at the 
source code or attempting to port it to Pharo because it is GPL. I would 
sincerely love if I could now port such a library and license it under 
the GPL as required, and it not affect any other code outside of that 
specific library.


I am not a lawyer. Nor do I know any lawyers. Is is possible for someone 
to get a reasonably definitive answer on this question?


I am sure I am not the only one who has had this desire. I am also sure 
that I am not the only one who will have this question in the future. So 
it would be nice to have a proper legal response that could possibly be 
explicitly stated somewhere on the website or on an FAQ or something.


Regardless of the answer, yes or no. It does need to be a settled issue 
for Pharo. That way someone could know if GPL/LGPL or whatever software 
could be in the catalog.


Just wanted to put that out there to the community. I look forward to 
the answer, should one be or become available.


Thanks.


Jimmie

41 matches

Mail list logo