Begin forwarded message:
> From: Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> > Date: October 13, 2010 3:38:49 PM GMT+02:00 > To: "Schwab,Wilhelm K" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Fitzell, Julian" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] License question > > On 10/13/2010 02:46 PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote: >> Paolo, >> >> The language is not childish; it is a valid expression of how this >> looks to others; I know, because I had it blow up in my face. > > It only blew up in your face, because you didn't make a totally informed > decision upfront. The GPL FAQ can be a tough read, but it is really complete > and helpful. It's not legally binding, but it's written by people who are > experts and try to cover as many cases as possible, and . > >> After reading your "clone the API, then you can run fast as GPL or >> slow as MIT," I am more than ever aware of just how on the mark that >> characterization might be. > > Note that nothing forbids you from extending the "slow MIT" part until > it's as fast as the GPL version and effectively obsoletes it. It's just > basic software engineering that you'll first make things work, then > make things fast. > >> Another indication of the extent of the problems with/from GPL >> arises from my planned use of the Pharo Inbox. > > That's not a problem with/from GPL. That's a conscious choice from the > Pharo people, who decided to restrict the Inbox to only accept things > with a particular license. It's not good or wrong, it's simply a > decision that you have to live with. > >> One solution would be to clone and release just enough of the wrapper >> set to help people to roll their own wrappers, which might eventually >> spawn a clean-roomed set of wrappers. A good MIT library will >> eventually appear, and when it does, I want to be able to move my >> higher level code to it. > > Ok, that's fine---making provisions for the future is totally understandable > and not childish at all. But then, it doesn't require the usage of language > such as "infect" or "virus", either. :) > > The good news is that you can do it. See this other point from the GPL FAQ: > > If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that > mean that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL or a > GPL-compatible license? > > Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library. > > Note how it says "GPL-compatible" license. Right above this, it says > > The GPL says that the whole combined program has to be released > under the GPL. [...] > > But you can give additional permission for the use of your code. > You can, if you wish, release your program under a license which is > more lax than the GPL but compatible with the GPL. > > So you can release your bindings now and put it under the X11/MIT license. > However, I'd still add a README statement specifying that everything using > the bindings will also use GSL, and so will have to respect the GPL (when > distributed). You can quote the GPL FAQ and highlight "GPL-compatible". > > I can understand if there were some resistance from the Pharo > people about putting this in the main image, however. So, I still suggest > that you release your library from your website or from SqueakSource. > > -*- > > As an aside, the GPL is not alone in putting restrictions on redistributions, > but it does so for a specific end, which is to maximize the users' freedom. > This includes end users, not only developers. > > Take instead Microsoft's license on sample source code, which says you cannot > distribute any derivative work in source code. Personally I prefer something > that forces me to help people learn, than something that forbids me from > doing so. > > I hope this helps you in making a conscious choice, and also in trying to > understand my position. > > Paolo _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
