Hi Keith, Its nothing against your license (I think its cool). Its just that we initially decided that whoever contributes needs to sign the agreement. Like this, we will not have to discuss licenses over and over again. Now imagine, that every second Pharo contributor comes with his own license. Even if it is more liberal, it just adds complexity to the process and makes us discuss this topic, like we do now. I would prefer to fix a bug instead...
Hence, if you could sign the "official" agreement, that would be great. Cheers, Adrian On Dec 20, 2008, at 13:09 , Keith Hodges wrote: > Stéphane Ducasse wrote: >> now the questions are >> - is it really that difficult to agree for a project on a given >> simple license such as MIT? >> - I also hate licenses since they polute our lives but I just don't >> care and signed MIT >> - should we accept this kind of license (of course it is compatible >> with MIT) >> but this looks a door open to the mess. >> >> I'm not sure squeakers realized that after all the effort of yohsiki >> to get SqueakEtoys clean >> 3.11 could be WTFPL because keith commit on it. >> > Thats a complete load of rubbish. > No. 1 I dont see any need for profanity. > > No. 2 my licence is not like GNU, please dont say it is because you > will > just confuse people. > > Its freer than MIT because I don't care if you take my code and sell > it > as your own. You can even say you wrote it if you like. The > responsibility for what you do with it is yours not mine. > > Keith >> I'm quite convinced that they will boycott such a code. >> >> Stef >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
