On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:03, Serge Stinckwich <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Alain Rastoul <[email protected]> wrote: >> +1 for the GTInspector, and the Moose tools/paradigm too (Roassal, Glamour, >> Moose and others), all that stuff is great step forward and could arouse >> interest from doubtful people. >> I remember myself failing to show some collegues at work how the smalltalk >> system could be a cool tool to play with, even for people sticking on >> dotNet, Delphi or C++. >> And sometimes they remember that too ... >> (Smalltalk? Squeak? -at that time- that blinking and poping toy ? hahaha >> ...) >> :( >> Still working on that like a flea (?- a morpion) >> >> Morphic removed is good news - clumsy, buggy and weird - but I don't >> understand the relationship with GTInspector ? >> I googled about that and just found a post of you about Bloc in the mailing >> list, it sounds like a good idea, and I'm sure you'll manage to do it >> cleanly, but I'm also very curious about that: big bang or dependency >> injection and small steps? other patterns, techniques ? a link on Bloc ? >> I'm also curious about Spec and it's status after it's change to GPL ? Will >> it be supported in the future ? What are the alternatives ? > > Yes, apparently spec is distributed now under a dual licence : MIT > when used as an external library (not sure what it means when you use > Smalltalk) > and GPL when integrated in an IDE ... I think that this is a potential > problem for Pharo. > GPL is not compatible with Pharo. All code that is part of the Pharo main distribution is either historical (Apple Licence) or MIT. We even let people sign a document that makes this clear. New code has to be MIT, we do not accept any other license (as part of the main distribution). e.g. Zinc was done because the HTTP server we were using was made GPL (it did not have a licence when we started to use it). Marcus
