On 26 Aug 2014, at 11:22, Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:58, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> wrote: > >> There is another option: work together again. > > Is an option, in theory. But doesn’t looks like happening any time soon, > sadly :( Well, everybody loses by forking. > Esteban > >> >> 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/ >>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
