2010/3/10 Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]>: >> What the starting point is will depend on to what extent Cog has >>>> been open sourced (Teleplace may choose to open source >>>> single-threaded Cog initially, keeping back the threaded FFI for >>>> a while, it may not open source Cog at all; we'll see :) ). >>> May be I the only one to notice the:) which I have problem to >>> understand since for me it announces that COG may not be >>> open-source. >> >> Isn't this what you wanted to allow companies to do, when you chose the >> MIT license? I don't understand, why should you care?
We shouldn't. Well, except if previous annoucements strongly suggested this would be the case... >> >> I see some irony... > Not me. Freedom of choice is a political attitude. I understand GPL goal but I > do not adhere to it. I respect people pushing it but not in my way. I'm not > sure > that we should debate that here but we do not have the single answer. > > Not sure the goals differ much, but indeed these are two radically different strategies. The question is: would COG have ever started under a GPL derivative? Who knows? Since it did not happen, current choice is between an hypothetical something MIT or nothing... Bah, at least we already get a closure VM in Squeak. Nicolas > _______________________________________________ > 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
