I understand that Pharo people will in general want to stay away from
the GPL. I just didn't know if it would potentially be more equivalent
to how other languages work.
In Python to my understanding I could do something like
#into my MIT licensed app
import GPL_library
import MIT_library
And the GPL not be viral in my app provided I only use the GPL library
and am not modifying it in my app.
Do I understand this wrong?
I haven't yet investigated Pharo 7 yet, so I do not know what would be
similar to the above.
MyMITClass #initialize
"Install configurationOfGPL package"
self useGPLPackage
Yes it is contrived. But I am trying to see why Pharo would be different?
Both are loading GPL code and running it in a mixed system.
Regarding dual-licensing. I don't think that is likely. Most of these
people prefer the GPL and use it because they want its viral nature and
dislike the permissiveness of MIT software. They want to constrain they
software.
Thanks to all who replied. I just thought I would ask.
Jimmie
On 09/16/2017 02:17 AM, Stephane Ducasse wrote:
I do not think that the bootstrap changed anything. :)
We will stay away from GPL.
May be you can talk to the people of the libraries you want to use and
see if they are interested in a dual license.
Stef
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Jimmie Houchin <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello,
Pharo 7 to my understanding fundamentally changes Pharo. It is my
understanding that Pharo 7 starts with a core Pharo kernel and like many
languages out there, imports or adds code from a variety of external sources
to the image being built.
With that understanding, I am curious if that would allow for inclusion of a
specific library/module to be licensed as GPL? And it not affect the other
code in the composed image?
I am a big believer in the MIT/BSD license and not a big fan of the GPL.
However, there is software out there that I have avoided looking at the
source code or attempting to port it to Pharo because it is GPL. I would
sincerely love if I could now port such a library and license it under the
GPL as required, and it not affect any other code outside of that specific
library.
I am not a lawyer. Nor do I know any lawyers. Is is possible for someone to
get a reasonably definitive answer on this question?
I am sure I am not the only one who has had this desire. I am also sure that
I am not the only one who will have this question in the future. So it would
be nice to have a proper legal response that could possibly be explicitly
stated somewhere on the website or on an FAQ or something.
Regardless of the answer, yes or no. It does need to be a settled issue for
Pharo. That way someone could know if GPL/LGPL or whatever software could be
in the catalog.
Just wanted to put that out there to the community. I look forward to the
answer, should one be or become available.
Thanks.
Jimmie
