https://github.com/spec-framework/spec/commit/07ea83ca50523b4a912e363ff2f3974c69314b7f#commitcomment-7540588
I think the license might need further improvements.
I've taken a look at the commit history, and it looks
to me like there is a licensing problem there.
I am no lawyer, so don't know w
Does it really matter?
If the external repository gets successfully relicensed, or Benjamin publishes
new improvements as a separate, GPL-licensed change set, the end result is the
same;
no improvement he makes will make its way back into the versions in Core.
I may not know his reasons, but I c
No, it doesn't.
We can improve Spec in the core, why wouldn't we be able to?
We use it in a lot of the tools, so, there are plenty of samples and
documentation exists.
One can make sense of what's going on under the hood.
Have a look at: (this is for Pharo 3.0)
SpecInterpreter>>interpretASpec:s
Will there be any interest in alternative declarative framework, mostly
fleshed out, worked in Pharo 2.0 / with little fixes for FileDirectory et
als in 3.0
http://skrishnamachari.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/pharo-application-framework-aka-morphic-view-framework/
I can push this in with the required
Hi phil
I agree.
I cleaned the MorphicAdapters during a recesss from project writing. I
should finish the last two: menu and menu group.
Stef
On 28/8/14 14:21, p...@highoctane.be wrote:
No, it doesn't.
We can improve Spec in the core, why wouldn't we be able to?
We use it in a lot of the
Hi skri
Glenn is also working for a company and building an alternative to Spec
to support mobile and others. What is important is that
- we should continue to clean and improve spec and its documentation.
- understand and push alternative solutions
- so I suggest that you should m
Thx..
Here I repost, an alternative framework to wire up Morphic UI:
* Implicit spec, full layout described spec and table layout based spec
options:
http://skrishnamachari.wordpress.com/2014/09/01/reviving-pharo-morphic-view/
Model / View / Controller hooks exists, the additional parts of the 2
The Spec news page [1] explains the license change and anyone can easily guess
that it is caused
by Benjamins personal disagreements with Stef. No judgement on that from my
side as this
is a personal issue between the two and as I like most of us have only a few
infos on that from
the outside.
http://forum.world.st/Board-clarification-around-Spec-td4775346.html
On 03 Sep 2014, at 10:24, Torsten Bergmann wrote:
> The Spec news page [1] explains the license change and anyone can easily
> guess that it is caused
> by Benjamins personal disagreements with Stef. No judgement on that from
Le 3 sept. 2014 à 10:24, Torsten Bergmann a écrit :
> It is interesting that there is also a new Spec release [2] announced this
> week
I can see in the announce:
Adds SpecTableLayout, thanks @webwarrior-ws
Removes hardcoded colors, thanks @Uko
Do the authors of contribution (or their company
Yes, you should add a slice in the Pharo inbox with your contribution but ...
it depends under which license you first published your contribution. If it was
MIT, it is fine (and spec is out of law). If it was the double licensing, we
will not be able to integrate it into Pharo. We should re-imp
I’ve made fixes long time ago before Ben left.
+ my change is in Pharo image.
Is this enough?
Uko
On 04 Sep 2014, at 11:39, Christophe Demarey
wrote:
> Yes, you should add a slice in the Pharo inbox with your contribution but ...
> it depends under which license you first published your cont
Le 5 sept. 2014 à 09:38, Yuriy Tymchuk a écrit :
> I’ve made fixes long time ago before Ben left.
> + my change is in Pharo image.
>
> Is this enough?
I think so. All code contributed to Pharo via Fogbugz is licensed under MIT.
Problems may come if you did a pull request on the spec git repo af
No it was before.
https://github.com/spec-framework/spec/pull/14
May 2
On 05 Sep 2014, at 10:43, Christophe Demarey
wrote:
>
> Le 5 sept. 2014 à 09:38, Yuriy Tymchuk a écrit :
>
>> I’ve made fixes long time ago before Ben left.
>> + my change is in Pharo image.
>>
>> Is this enough?
>
> I
Now I'm glad that I just read [1] which says "Today (15 Aug 2014), Spec
is changing its license. Until today, Spec was released under the MIT
license." I was just about to again rant about the apparent
silent relicensing of Spec on 6 Jan 2014 [2] to the CCPL-A-NC-SA [3]
(Creative
Commons Public
Well I can tell you as a lawyer that GPL is a legal nightmare. I am not
against anyone using it as a license but legally is far from clear and
there is no guarantees under which circumstances is enforceable.
Also copyright is tricky, usually someone contributes based on existing
code, so code is n
16 matches
Mail list logo
