Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

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

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

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

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

> 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

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

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

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

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

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

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

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

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

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

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

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

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

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

> 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

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

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

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

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

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

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

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

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

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

+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

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

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

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

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

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

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

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

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

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

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

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

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

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

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

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

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

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

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

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

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

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

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

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

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,

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

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

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

> 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

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

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

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

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

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

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

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

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

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

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

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

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

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

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 >

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

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

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

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

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

> 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

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

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-users] Pharo 7 license question

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