On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 3:06 PM, stepharo <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Stef, > > Please see http://voss.logicarts.com/licensing I'm not a lawyer, so I can't > say anything about the interpretation of GPLv3, > except to comment without prejudice: As it is a complex subject, my intention > was that users may prefer to negotiate a > commercial licence with technical support, which may well be cheaper than the > alternative legal services. I'm open to > suggestions and negotiation, but I do need to monetise my time and effort - > nobody paid me to write VOSS. > > Regards, > John > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: stepharo [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] > >Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2015 8:57 AM > >To: Any question about pharo is welcome; [email protected] > >Subject: Re: [Pharo-users] Porting Voss to Pharo > > > >I think that the author of voss should reply. > > > >Stef > > > >Le 6/3/15 23:07, Stephan Eggermont a crit : > >> On 06/03/15 16:16, stepharo wrote: > >>> Hi guys > >>> > >>> if some of you are interested to drive porting VOSS to Pharo, let me > >>> know John sent me the code and I can give it to you. > >>> There is a dual license > >>> - LGPL > >>> - commercial > >> > >> What does LGPL mean for VOSS? At FOSDEM I talked with Bradley Kuhn of > >> the FSF. It is something that has been on their to do list for a while > >> now. In the 'strict' interpretation it is as viral as GPL for > >> smalltalk code. > >> > >> Stephan > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >______________________________________________ > >This email has been scanned by Netintelligence > >http://www.netintelligence.com/email > > > >
