On 12 March 2010 00:31, Chris Muller <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, I certainly care.. Stef wasn't remarking about license rights, > he said didn't understand the smiley face. Frankly, I don't either. > After years of teasing from Bryce and now this? What a crushing > disappointment. > >
I think that Teleplace realizing that there is no reason to keep this technology private. Simply because there is nothing too much compelling comparing to other open-source implementations which already having open-sourced JITs. Instead, by giving it away, it would increase their own chances to success, because it will attract more developers, more professionals to Squeak & friends and rise it visibility. Oh.. unless Teleplace wants to use marketing strategy to hide the fact that their product is based on Squeak and implemented in smalltalk. I'm only hope that people won't ashame themselves with postings like this: http://www.opengl.org/news/comments/croquet_sdk_v10_opengl_api_based_open_source_3d_collaborative_visualization/ a ‘late-binding object-oriented’ programming language WTF?!?!?! > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Nicolas Cellier > <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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 >> > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
