If Benjamin does not intend to continue developing in Pharo , that means he will not continue developing Spec. So in any case you need to talk to him and see exactly what his intentions are.
But if he does not want to let us use it as integrated library for Pharo then I don't think you guys have much of a choice. One thing to remember here is that licenses extend to modification and extensions, that means that anyone who makes an extension to Spec or a Spec based app cannot integrate it to Pharo so already Pharo tools using Spec are against the dual license. Personally I would not use such library for my projects because I do care integrating some of my code back to Pharo to contribute to the progress of Pharo. On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 26 Aug 2014, at 11:50, [email protected] wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > Sure but for Ben new commits will be GPL. Pull requests included. > > Basically, we are fucked on that line I'd say. > > @Phil > > Look, I don't want to defend or attack either party and the recent license > change is a bit dubious, like Marcus said. But for the sake of argument, I > think your conclusion is wrong: he says/wants Spec to be managed as an > external library that gets integrated back to Pharo from time to time. When > doing so, everything remains MIT licensed. Else he wants it to be GPL-ed so > that it cannot be integrated in Pharo. > > @Esteban > > But again: if there is a conflict there are always two solutions, solve it > or part ways. Saying the other party made me do it is the same as saying I > am right and he is wrong (and this goes for both sides ;-) > > Maybe we should start another thread about this. Because the basic > question is not about a license or a name change but about how to work > together and about control, specifically for parts and/or developers that > are external. I know that this is a complex discussion, but if we in > general have problems of working modular than we are in trouble, no ? > > Sven > > >
