There is another option: work together again. On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:56, [email protected] wrote:
> Due to Ben leaving, we have one MIT version and his version. > Now, we will have the Pharo fork and his version. > > Maybe is it time to fork the repo and get our own under the Pharo project. > > Phil > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Luc Fabresse <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > Since the code of Spec has been integrated in Pharo when it was MIT, I think > that this is not a problem. > To me, the new licence only apply to the new code in the repository of Spec > since the licence changed. > So now, no spec code should be loaded in the Pharo base image. > > Cheers, > > Luc > > > 2014-08-26 10:18 GMT+02:00 Serge Stinckwich <[email protected]>: > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Marcus Denker <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > 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). > > I completely agree with you. This why I was worried with this double > licencing of spec. > > Regards, > -- > Serge Stinckwich > UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) > Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk > http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/ > > >
