[ANN] Territorial Re-Licensing

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
12 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[ANN] Territorial Re-Licensing

hernanmd

I consider GNU AGPL v3 a fair license choice which protects somehow authors. After some talks with friends today, I began to consider it useless for a niche community like Smalltalk *and* solo projects. I then read all your mails, many posts in other communities, and finally asked for advices. Conclusion: The ideal license option for me was not yet invented.

Now about parasite behavior and easy living for freeloaders.

- I doubt Smalltalkers are in position for doing anything valuable against parasites. GPL scares a niche community. All of us having MIT code published can be stealed and we have no legal options to defend our work/authorship. That should be addressed one day.

- However, I would like one day to read people releasing software under whatever license they want and not to be pointed them. That's a matter of freedom. I feel we are far away from there.

- I hope we can talk about interesting Territorial features, what do you need, what could be modeled better, etc. Licensing is boring, really.

I re-licensed Territorial to MIT for the nice Pharo people, for the nice Smalltalkers, people who helped me here in mailing lists, or sending supportive private messages, and for cool users with nice intentions.

Hernán

PS: Updated User Manual: http://bit.ly/2c4RrCJ



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANN] Territorial Re-Licensing

Ben Coman
Hi Hernan,

Thanks for your balanced response.  Licensing discussion can be boring
but also crucial, hence the sometimes religious views on it.  Like a
lot of things, from a distance it seems easy - but the devil is in the
details.  Consider anyway that "Territorial" may otherwise have been a
single blip in your first [ANN] post, but its now had more exposure.
I hope you don't mind I follow up with one more post that has been
sitting almost complete in Drafts folder a few days, after researching
some interesting points.

cheers -ben

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Hernán Morales Durand
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I consider GNU AGPL v3 a fair license choice which protects somehow authors.
> After some talks with friends today, I began to consider it useless for a
> niche community like Smalltalk *and* solo projects. I then read all your
> mails, many posts in other communities, and finally asked for advices.
> Conclusion: The ideal license option for me was not yet invented.
>
> Now about parasite behavior and easy living for freeloaders.
>
> - I doubt Smalltalkers are in position for doing anything valuable against
> parasites. GPL scares a niche community. All of us having MIT code published
> can be stealed and we have no legal options to defend our work/authorship.
> That should be addressed one day.
>
> - However, I would like one day to read people releasing software under
> whatever license they want and not to be pointed them. That's a matter of
> freedom. I feel we are far away from there.
>
> - I hope we can talk about interesting Territorial features, what do you
> need, what could be modeled better, etc. Licensing is boring, really.
>
> I re-licensed Territorial to MIT for the nice Pharo people, for the nice
> Smalltalkers, people who helped me here in mailing lists, or sending
> supportive private messages, and for cool users with nice intentions.
>
> Hernán
>
> PS: Updated User Manual: http://bit.ly/2c4RrCJ
>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANN] Territorial Re-Licensing

stepharo
In reply to this post by hernanmd

You can be proud of you. I'm proud of you and I can tell you that I really understand you. I can tell you that once I was tempted to change the license of my new books because bad people could just take everything. (yes this is silly when you read but I thought about it and we even discussed it in the book mailing-list). And I changed my mind and continue to use the most liberal CC license.

And I have sometimes the same doubts with Pharo code. Nothing prevents people to copy what we took ages to build. Now let us live along with that.

Now what is important for our community is how we get money inside and that people can make a living. You can add yourself to the Pharo consultant list (sadly I do not think that it will get an impact but we should do it).

Now what would be nice to know is what are the time you can do on other paid projects and what are the domains of expertise you have so that if we know companies they can be put in contact with you.

Stef


Le 8/9/16 à 06:00, Hernán Morales Durand a écrit :

I consider GNU AGPL v3 a fair license choice which protects somehow authors. After some talks with friends today, I began to consider it useless for a niche community like Smalltalk *and* solo projects. I then read all your mails, many posts in other communities, and finally asked for advices. Conclusion: The ideal license option for me was not yet invented.

Now about parasite behavior and easy living for freeloaders.

- I doubt Smalltalkers are in position for doing anything valuable against parasites. GPL scares a niche community. All of us having MIT code published can be stealed and we have no legal options to defend our work/authorship. That should be addressed one day.

- However, I would like one day to read people releasing software under whatever license they want and not to be pointed them. That's a matter of freedom. I feel we are far away from there.

- I hope we can talk about interesting Territorial features, what do you need, what could be modeled better, etc. Licensing is boring, really.

I re-licensed Territorial to MIT for the nice Pharo people, for the nice Smalltalkers, people who helped me here in mailing lists, or sending supportive private messages, and for cool users with nice intentions.

Hernán

PS: Updated User Manual: http://bit.ly/2c4RrCJ




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANN] Territorial Re-Licensing

Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas-2
In reply to this post by hernanmd

Nice to know something good came out after taking all the heat. In my case I learn about licensing with the reasons behind and not "just take it!"...

My sources of information, the main spec.st site, made my mistake about dual license a valid misinterpretation and even the idea that there are other non-viral licenses: LGPL, 3 clause BSD, public domain that can integrated in a MIT licensed project, with the rationale behind [1], seems a good thing to make explicit

[1] http://etoileos.com/dev/licensing/

Kind of down though, after seeing how a community leader can go after other people who don't share his views/knowledge and is just trying to contribute, understand and be part of the community. Today would be a slow day for me in Smalltak... maybe is time to take a walk a leave it for a time.

Cheers,

Offray


On 08/09/16 06:00, Hernán Morales Durand wrote:

I consider GNU AGPL v3 a fair license choice which protects somehow authors. After some talks with friends today, I began to consider it useless for a niche community like Smalltalk *and* solo projects. I then read all your mails, many posts in other communities, and finally asked for advices. Conclusion: The ideal license option for me was not yet invented.

Now about parasite behavior and easy living for freeloaders.

- I doubt Smalltalkers are in position for doing anything valuable against parasites. GPL scares a niche community. All of us having MIT code published can be stealed and we have no legal options to defend our work/authorship. That should be addressed one day.

- However, I would like one day to read people releasing software under whatever license they want and not to be pointed them. That's a matter of freedom. I feel we are far away from there.

- I hope we can talk about interesting Territorial features, what do you need, what could be modeled better, etc. Licensing is boring, really.

I re-licensed Territorial to MIT for the nice Pharo people, for the nice Smalltalkers, people who helped me here in mailing lists, or sending supportive private messages, and for cool users with nice intentions.

Hernán

PS: Updated User Manual: http://bit.ly/2c4RrCJ




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANN] Territorial Re-Licensing

Tudor Girba-2
Hi Offray,

I am sorry you feel down.

The wording of Stef did appear strong. However, please keep in mind that email is a terrible medium for expressing and transmitting feelings. I would kindly ask you to reconsider the emails and focus on the content and you will see that the wording was not about the external project but about the decisions that relate to the licensing of Pharo itself. As Esteban and I clarified, Pharo is MIT and will remain MIT. There is a long history of why this is so and a huge amount of effort to make it clean MIT. To keep it clean we have to be aware of the implications of another kind of a license, and our clarifications were about how we, those that work on the main Pharo code, will not touch a GPL code and that this might have a counter productive impact on the originator of the code in question (due to a lack of engagement from other people).

Please also keep in mind that we do not want to prevent people from choosing their own licenses. The decision of the license belongs exclusively to the creators of the code. We are only looking for the interests of the core of Pharo to make sure that you will continue to have whatever options you choose on top of it. And you will always be free to choose what you want for your projects.

Just a note about other licenses you mentioned: in the context of Pharo, LGPL has the same effect as GPL given that there is no concept of binary reusability in our system. So, for that purpose, we also do not touch LGPL.

A final point: when someone says that "we decided something a long time ago”, it is easy to take it as a “this is it, just take it”, but that would be a bit unfair. A more fair alternative is to understand that time is scarce and sometimes we just do not have the available energy to provide all clarifications on demand right at that point.

Please let’s focus on building things together, even if there are misunderstandings or seaming differences in opinion. We need everyone’s energy.

Cheers,
Doru


> On Sep 8, 2016, at 9:53 AM, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Nice to know something good came out after taking all the heat. In my case I learn about licensing with the reasons behind and not "just take it!"...
> My sources of information, the main spec.st site, made my mistake about dual license a valid misinterpretation and even the idea that there are other non-viral licenses: LGPL, 3 clause BSD, public domain that can integrated in a MIT licensed project, with the rationale behind [1], seems a good thing to make explicit
> [1] http://etoileos.com/dev/licensing/
> Kind of down though, after seeing how a community leader can go after other people who don't share his views/knowledge and is just trying to contribute, understand and be part of the community. Today would be a slow day for me in Smalltak... maybe is time to take a walk a leave it for a time.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Offray
>
> On 08/09/16 06:00, Hernán Morales Durand wrote:
>>
>> I consider GNU AGPL v3 a fair license choice which protects somehow authors. After some talks with friends today, I began to consider it useless for a niche community like Smalltalk *and* solo projects. I then read all your mails, many posts in other communities, and finally asked for advices. Conclusion: The ideal license option for me was not yet invented.
>>
>> Now about parasite behavior and easy living for freeloaders.
>>
>> - I doubt Smalltalkers are in position for doing anything valuable against parasites. GPL scares a niche community. All of us having MIT code published can be stealed and we have no legal options to defend our work/authorship. That should be addressed one day.
>>
>> - However, I would like one day to read people releasing software under whatever license they want and not to be pointed them. That's a matter of freedom. I feel we are far away from there.
>>
>> - I hope we can talk about interesting Territorial features, what do you need, what could be modeled better, etc. Licensing is boring, really.
>>
>> I re-licensed Territorial to MIT for the nice Pharo people, for the nice Smalltalkers, people who helped me here in mailing lists, or sending supportive private messages, and for cool users with nice intentions.
>>
>> Hernán
>>
>> PS: Updated User Manual: http://bit.ly/2c4RrCJ
>>
>>
>>
>

--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.feenk.com

"Next time you see your life passing by, say 'hi' and get to know her."





Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANN] Territorial Re-Licensing

Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas-2
Hi Tudor,

I recognize the impedance with mail as an expression medium and most of
the time it was like you said, except when Stef addressed to me with  
"It is amazing how you like talking" (is this some kind of invitation to
"just shut up!"? Is that a "remainder" I have not written enough code to
have a valid voice here?).

For me, if someone has no the time for a detailed response, going with:
"GPL is a plague", "You can argue I don't care" or "Pharo is MIT.
Period.", or fighting the person instead of fighting the argument, makes
more harm that good. No clarification, because lack of energy or time,
seems better that these alternative "clarifications". Not all the people
is trying to start a holy war anytime makes a suggestion or shows a
different position. Sometimes we're just trying to contribute and
understand, even when we come from different places, interests and life
paths.

Thanks for pointing the LGPL issue (so, 3 BSD, MIT, public domain are a
good fit). At least I made my contribution by pointing the Etoile place
where there is a *rationale* behind a license choosing that makes this
licensing issues clearer for newcomers.

Energy is low today, but putting things in perspective, most of the time
community is welcoming, even if particular interactions among people are
not.

Cheers,

Offray


On 08/09/16 11:40, Tudor Girba wrote:

> Hi Offray,
>
> I am sorry you feel down.
>
> The wording of Stef did appear strong. However, please keep in mind that email is a terrible medium for expressing and transmitting feelings. I would kindly ask you to reconsider the emails and focus on the content and you will see that the wording was not about the external project but about the decisions that relate to the licensing of Pharo itself. As Esteban and I clarified, Pharo is MIT and will remain MIT. There is a long history of why this is so and a huge amount of effort to make it clean MIT. To keep it clean we have to be aware of the implications of another kind of a license, and our clarifications were about how we, those that work on the main Pharo code, will not touch a GPL code and that this might have a counter productive impact on the originator of the code in question (due to a lack of engagement from other people).
>
> Please also keep in mind that we do not want to prevent people from choosing their own licenses. The decision of the license belongs exclusively to the creators of the code. We are only looking for the interests of the core of Pharo to make sure that you will continue to have whatever options you choose on top of it. And you will always be free to choose what you want for your projects.
>
> Just a note about other licenses you mentioned: in the context of Pharo, LGPL has the same effect as GPL given that there is no concept of binary reusability in our system. So, for that purpose, we also do not touch LGPL.
>
> A final point: when someone says that "we decided something a long time ago”, it is easy to take it as a “this is it, just take it”, but that would be a bit unfair. A more fair alternative is to understand that time is scarce and sometimes we just do not have the available energy to provide all clarifications on demand right at that point.
>
> Please let’s focus on building things together, even if there are misunderstandings or seaming differences in opinion. We need everyone’s energy.
>
> Cheers,
> Doru
>
>
>> On Sep 8, 2016, at 9:53 AM, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Nice to know something good came out after taking all the heat. In my case I learn about licensing with the reasons behind and not "just take it!"...
>> My sources of information, the main spec.st site, made my mistake about dual license a valid misinterpretation and even the idea that there are other non-viral licenses: LGPL, 3 clause BSD, public domain that can integrated in a MIT licensed project, with the rationale behind [1], seems a good thing to make explicit
>> [1] http://etoileos.com/dev/licensing/
>> Kind of down though, after seeing how a community leader can go after other people who don't share his views/knowledge and is just trying to contribute, understand and be part of the community. Today would be a slow day for me in Smalltak... maybe is time to take a walk a leave it for a time.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Offray
>>
>> On 08/09/16 06:00, Hernán Morales Durand wrote:
>>> I consider GNU AGPL v3 a fair license choice which protects somehow authors. After some talks with friends today, I began to consider it useless for a niche community like Smalltalk *and* solo projects. I then read all your mails, many posts in other communities, and finally asked for advices. Conclusion: The ideal license option for me was not yet invented.
>>>
>>> Now about parasite behavior and easy living for freeloaders.
>>>
>>> - I doubt Smalltalkers are in position for doing anything valuable against parasites. GPL scares a niche community. All of us having MIT code published can be stealed and we have no legal options to defend our work/authorship. That should be addressed one day.
>>>
>>> - However, I would like one day to read people releasing software under whatever license they want and not to be pointed them. That's a matter of freedom. I feel we are far away from there.
>>>
>>> - I hope we can talk about interesting Territorial features, what do you need, what could be modeled better, etc. Licensing is boring, really.
>>>
>>> I re-licensed Territorial to MIT for the nice Pharo people, for the nice Smalltalkers, people who helped me here in mailing lists, or sending supportive private messages, and for cool users with nice intentions.
>>>
>>> Hernán
>>>
>>> PS: Updated User Manual: http://bit.ly/2c4RrCJ
>>>
>>>
>>>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
> www.feenk.com
>
> "Next time you see your life passing by, say 'hi' and get to know her."
>
>
>
>
>
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANN] Territorial Re-Licensing

kilon.alios
well he did apologize

And these things do happen in all communities, I cannot begin to describe the poison I have received in the #common-lisp irc channel. One time also in their mailing list , some old member got annoyed for small reason with a begineer and he gave him code to delete his hard drive, fortunately other members replied immediately after warning the beginner not to execute the code.

License wise MIT/BSD are by far the top most popular license , they got so popular that FSF was forced to release LGPL to compete with them but at the same time not upsetting too much their GPL supporters.

So as you can see Pharo is no exception, its actually the rule. Also other licenses are very close to MIT/BSD making MIT almost a monopoly on open source software.

Don't believe me ? Here are the top trending github repos that contain a code license ( creative commons applies not to code but mainly to assets, music, sound, text, graphics, fonts, etc)

https://github.com/facebook/zstd
https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow
https://github.com/vuejs/vue
https://github.com/camwiegert/in-view
https://github.com/nasa/openmct
https://github.com/baidu/Paddle
https://github.com/facebookresearch/fastText
https://github.com/david-gpu/srez
https://github.com/quilljs/quill
https://github.com/shekhargulati/52-technologies-in-2016

Mostly they are MIT , others are MIT like licenses like Apache and BSD, only one is a custom made one still similar to MIT. None GPL not even LGPL.

https://github.com/trending?since=monthly

Actually you can continued down the list and I am sure will take you even more time to find a GPL or even LGPL licensed open source project.

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 1:23 PM Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Tudor,

I recognize the impedance with mail as an expression medium and most of
the time it was like you said, except when Stef addressed to me with
"It is amazing how you like talking" (is this some kind of invitation to
"just shut up!"? Is that a "remainder" I have not written enough code to
have a valid voice here?).

For me, if someone has no the time for a detailed response, going with:
"GPL is a plague", "You can argue I don't care" or "Pharo is MIT.
Period.", or fighting the person instead of fighting the argument, makes
more harm that good. No clarification, because lack of energy or time,
seems better that these alternative "clarifications". Not all the people
is trying to start a holy war anytime makes a suggestion or shows a
different position. Sometimes we're just trying to contribute and
understand, even when we come from different places, interests and life
paths.

Thanks for pointing the LGPL issue (so, 3 BSD, MIT, public domain are a
good fit). At least I made my contribution by pointing the Etoile place
where there is a *rationale* behind a license choosing that makes this
licensing issues clearer for newcomers.

Energy is low today, but putting things in perspective, most of the time
community is welcoming, even if particular interactions among people are
not.

Cheers,

Offray


On 08/09/16 11:40, Tudor Girba wrote:
> Hi Offray,
>
> I am sorry you feel down.
>
> The wording of Stef did appear strong. However, please keep in mind that email is a terrible medium for expressing and transmitting feelings. I would kindly ask you to reconsider the emails and focus on the content and you will see that the wording was not about the external project but about the decisions that relate to the licensing of Pharo itself. As Esteban and I clarified, Pharo is MIT and will remain MIT. There is a long history of why this is so and a huge amount of effort to make it clean MIT. To keep it clean we have to be aware of the implications of another kind of a license, and our clarifications were about how we, those that work on the main Pharo code, will not touch a GPL code and that this might have a counter productive impact on the originator of the code in question (due to a lack of engagement from other people).
>
> Please also keep in mind that we do not want to prevent people from choosing their own licenses. The decision of the license belongs exclusively to the creators of the code. We are only looking for the interests of the core of Pharo to make sure that you will continue to have whatever options you choose on top of it. And you will always be free to choose what you want for your projects.
>
> Just a note about other licenses you mentioned: in the context of Pharo, LGPL has the same effect as GPL given that there is no concept of binary reusability in our system. So, for that purpose, we also do not touch LGPL.
>
> A final point: when someone says that "we decided something a long time ago”, it is easy to take it as a “this is it, just take it”, but that would be a bit unfair. A more fair alternative is to understand that time is scarce and sometimes we just do not have the available energy to provide all clarifications on demand right at that point.
>
> Please let’s focus on building things together, even if there are misunderstandings or seaming differences in opinion. We need everyone’s energy.
>
> Cheers,
> Doru
>
>
>> On Sep 8, 2016, at 9:53 AM, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Nice to know something good came out after taking all the heat. In my case I learn about licensing with the reasons behind and not "just take it!"...
>> My sources of information, the main spec.st site, made my mistake about dual license a valid misinterpretation and even the idea that there are other non-viral licenses: LGPL, 3 clause BSD, public domain that can integrated in a MIT licensed project, with the rationale behind [1], seems a good thing to make explicit
>> [1] http://etoileos.com/dev/licensing/
>> Kind of down though, after seeing how a community leader can go after other people who don't share his views/knowledge and is just trying to contribute, understand and be part of the community. Today would be a slow day for me in Smalltak... maybe is time to take a walk a leave it for a time.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Offray
>>
>> On 08/09/16 06:00, Hernán Morales Durand wrote:
>>> I consider GNU AGPL v3 a fair license choice which protects somehow authors. After some talks with friends today, I began to consider it useless for a niche community like Smalltalk *and* solo projects. I then read all your mails, many posts in other communities, and finally asked for advices. Conclusion: The ideal license option for me was not yet invented.
>>>
>>> Now about parasite behavior and easy living for freeloaders.
>>>
>>> - I doubt Smalltalkers are in position for doing anything valuable against parasites. GPL scares a niche community. All of us having MIT code published can be stealed and we have no legal options to defend our work/authorship. That should be addressed one day.
>>>
>>> - However, I would like one day to read people releasing software under whatever license they want and not to be pointed them. That's a matter of freedom. I feel we are far away from there.
>>>
>>> - I hope we can talk about interesting Territorial features, what do you need, what could be modeled better, etc. Licensing is boring, really.
>>>
>>> I re-licensed Territorial to MIT for the nice Pharo people, for the nice Smalltalkers, people who helped me here in mailing lists, or sending supportive private messages, and for cool users with nice intentions.
>>>
>>> Hernán
>>>
>>> PS: Updated User Manual: http://bit.ly/2c4RrCJ
>>>
>>>
>>>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
> www.feenk.com
>
> "Next time you see your life passing by, say 'hi' and get to know her."
>
>
>
>
>
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANN] Territorial Re-Licensing

Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas-2

Please let's move on. My motivation was trying to see the logic behind licenses in Pharo (not on popularity of GPL vs MIT), raised by a valid concern on free riding, enclosure of the commons and reciprocity, which is a hot topic with a lot of debate in free culture/knowledge communities. I learned about why MIT an alike are better in the context of image based systems, Territorial was relicensed. Some people apologized and some others went "+1". On personal attacks and rant reactions, I think that, as a community, we can also learn from that a try to minimize them.

It was another day in the community. With that cleared, let's move.

Cheers,

Offray


On 08/09/16 14:17, Dimitris Chloupis wrote:
well he did apologize

And these things do happen in all communities, I cannot begin to describe the poison I have received in the #common-lisp irc channel. One time also in their mailing list , some old member got annoyed for small reason with a begineer and he gave him code to delete his hard drive, fortunately other members replied immediately after warning the beginner not to execute the code.

License wise MIT/BSD are by far the top most popular license , they got so popular that FSF was forced to release LGPL to compete with them but at the same time not upsetting too much their GPL supporters.

So as you can see Pharo is no exception, its actually the rule. Also other licenses are very close to MIT/BSD making MIT almost a monopoly on open source software.

Don't believe me ? Here are the top trending github repos that contain a code license ( creative commons applies not to code but mainly to assets, music, sound, text, graphics, fonts, etc)

https://github.com/facebook/zstd
https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow
https://github.com/vuejs/vue
https://github.com/camwiegert/in-view
https://github.com/nasa/openmct
https://github.com/baidu/Paddle
https://github.com/facebookresearch/fastText
https://github.com/david-gpu/srez
https://github.com/quilljs/quill
https://github.com/shekhargulati/52-technologies-in-2016

Mostly they are MIT , others are MIT like licenses like Apache and BSD, only one is a custom made one still similar to MIT. None GPL not even LGPL.

https://github.com/trending?since=monthly

Actually you can continued down the list and I am sure will take you even more time to find a GPL or even LGPL licensed open source project.

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 1:23 PM Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Tudor,

I recognize the impedance with mail as an expression medium and most of
the time it was like you said, except when Stef addressed to me with
"It is amazing how you like talking" (is this some kind of invitation to
"just shut up!"? Is that a "remainder" I have not written enough code to
have a valid voice here?).

For me, if someone has no the time for a detailed response, going with:
"GPL is a plague", "You can argue I don't care" or "Pharo is MIT.
Period.", or fighting the person instead of fighting the argument, makes
more harm that good. No clarification, because lack of energy or time,
seems better that these alternative "clarifications". Not all the people
is trying to start a holy war anytime makes a suggestion or shows a
different position. Sometimes we're just trying to contribute and
understand, even when we come from different places, interests and life
paths.

Thanks for pointing the LGPL issue (so, 3 BSD, MIT, public domain are a
good fit). At least I made my contribution by pointing the Etoile place
where there is a *rationale* behind a license choosing that makes this
licensing issues clearer for newcomers.

Energy is low today, but putting things in perspective, most of the time
community is welcoming, even if particular interactions among people are
not.

Cheers,

Offray


On 08/09/16 11:40, Tudor Girba wrote:
> Hi Offray,
>
> I am sorry you feel down.
>
> The wording of Stef did appear strong. However, please keep in mind that email is a terrible medium for expressing and transmitting feelings. I would kindly ask you to reconsider the emails and focus on the content and you will see that the wording was not about the external project but about the decisions that relate to the licensing of Pharo itself. As Esteban and I clarified, Pharo is MIT and will remain MIT. There is a long history of why this is so and a huge amount of effort to make it clean MIT. To keep it clean we have to be aware of the implications of another kind of a license, and our clarifications were about how we, those that work on the main Pharo code, will not touch a GPL code and that this might have a counter productive impact on the originator of the code in question (due to a lack of engagement from other people).
>
> Please also keep in mind that we do not want to prevent people from choosing their own licenses. The decision of the license belongs exclusively to the creators of the code. We are only looking for the interests of the core of Pharo to make sure that you will continue to have whatever options you choose on top of it. And you will always be free to choose what you want for your projects.
>
> Just a note about other licenses you mentioned: in the context of Pharo, LGPL has the same effect as GPL given that there is no concept of binary reusability in our system. So, for that purpose, we also do not touch LGPL.
>
> A final point: when someone says that "we decided something a long time ago”, it is easy to take it as a “this is it, just take it”, but that would be a bit unfair. A more fair alternative is to understand that time is scarce and sometimes we just do not have the available energy to provide all clarifications on demand right at that point.
>
> Please let’s focus on building things together, even if there are misunderstandings or seaming differences in opinion. We need everyone’s energy.
>
> Cheers,
> Doru
>
>
>> On Sep 8, 2016, at 9:53 AM, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Nice to know something good came out after taking all the heat. In my case I learn about licensing with the reasons behind and not "just take it!"...
>> My sources of information, the main spec.st site, made my mistake about dual license a valid misinterpretation and even the idea that there are other non-viral licenses: LGPL, 3 clause BSD, public domain that can integrated in a MIT licensed project, with the rationale behind [1], seems a good thing to make explicit
>> [1] http://etoileos.com/dev/licensing/
>> Kind of down though, after seeing how a community leader can go after other people who don't share his views/knowledge and is just trying to contribute, understand and be part of the community. Today would be a slow day for me in Smalltak... maybe is time to take a walk a leave it for a time.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Offray
>>
>> On 08/09/16 06:00, Hernán Morales Durand wrote:
>>> I consider GNU AGPL v3 a fair license choice which protects somehow authors. After some talks with friends today, I began to consider it useless for a niche community like Smalltalk *and* solo projects. I then read all your mails, many posts in other communities, and finally asked for advices. Conclusion: The ideal license option for me was not yet invented.
>>>
>>> Now about parasite behavior and easy living for freeloaders.
>>>
>>> - I doubt Smalltalkers are in position for doing anything valuable against parasites. GPL scares a niche community. All of us having MIT code published can be stealed and we have no legal options to defend our work/authorship. That should be addressed one day.
>>>
>>> - However, I would like one day to read people releasing software under whatever license they want and not to be pointed them. That's a matter of freedom. I feel we are far away from there.
>>>
>>> - I hope we can talk about interesting Territorial features, what do you need, what could be modeled better, etc. Licensing is boring, really.
>>>
>>> I re-licensed Territorial to MIT for the nice Pharo people, for the nice Smalltalkers, people who helped me here in mailing lists, or sending supportive private messages, and for cool users with nice intentions.
>>>
>>> Hernán
>>>
>>> PS: Updated User Manual: http://bit.ly/2c4RrCJ
>>>
>>>
>>>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
> www.feenk.com
>
> "Next time you see your life passing by, say 'hi' and get to know her."
>
>
>
>
>
>



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANN] Territorial Re-Licensing

Peter Kenny
In reply to this post by kilon.alios

Well did he? All I saw was an attempt to justify what he had said, in terms of the difficult history etc. Forceful argument is fine, but a personal attack like the one Offray quoted is unforgiveable. It could be put to bed if Stef would just say ‘sorry’ for that. But I’m not holding my breath.

 

Peter Kenny

 

From: Pharo-users [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Dimitris Chloupis
Sent: 08 September 2016 13:18
To: Any question about pharo is welcome <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Pharo-users] [ANN] Territorial Re-Licensing

 

well he did apologize

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANN] Territorial Re-Licensing

jfabry
In reply to this post by Tudor Girba-2

Dory, can your mail be put on the Pharo web page, the contributions part? It seems that with a bit of polishing it would fit in well there, and this way future discussions can point to that page.

--
Does this mail seem too brief? Sorry for that, I don’t mean to be rude! Please see http://emailcharter.org .

Johan Fabry   -   http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry
PLEIAD and RyCh labs  -  Computer Science Department (DCC)  -  University of Chile

> On Sep 8, 2016, at 06:40, Tudor Girba <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi Offray,
>
> I am sorry you feel down.
>
> The wording of Stef did appear strong. However, please keep in mind that email is a terrible medium for expressing and transmitting feelings. I would kindly ask you to reconsider the emails and focus on the content and you will see that the wording was not about the external project but about the decisions that relate to the licensing of Pharo itself. As Esteban and I clarified, Pharo is MIT and will remain MIT. There is a long history of why this is so and a huge amount of effort to make it clean MIT. To keep it clean we have to be aware of the implications of another kind of a license, and our clarifications were about how we, those that work on the main Pharo code, will not touch a GPL code and that this might have a counter productive impact on the originator of the code in question (due to a lack of engagement from other people).
>
> Please also keep in mind that we do not want to prevent people from choosing their own licenses. The decision of the license belongs exclusively to the creators of the code. We are only looking for the interests of the core of Pharo to make sure that you will continue to have whatever options you choose on top of it. And you will always be free to choose what you want for your projects.
>
> Just a note about other licenses you mentioned: in the context of Pharo, LGPL has the same effect as GPL given that there is no concept of binary reusability in our system. So, for that purpose, we also do not touch LGPL.
>
> A final point: when someone says that "we decided something a long time ago”, it is easy to take it as a “this is it, just take it”, but that would be a bit unfair. A more fair alternative is to understand that time is scarce and sometimes we just do not have the available energy to provide all clarifications on demand right at that point.
>
> Please let’s focus on building things together, even if there are misunderstandings or seaming differences in opinion. We need everyone’s energy.
>
> Cheers,
> Doru
>
>
>> On Sep 8, 2016, at 9:53 AM, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Nice to know something good came out after taking all the heat. In my case I learn about licensing with the reasons behind and not "just take it!"...
>> My sources of information, the main spec.st site, made my mistake about dual license a valid misinterpretation and even the idea that there are other non-viral licenses: LGPL, 3 clause BSD, public domain that can integrated in a MIT licensed project, with the rationale behind [1], seems a good thing to make explicit
>> [1] http://etoileos.com/dev/licensing/
>> Kind of down though, after seeing how a community leader can go after other people who don't share his views/knowledge and is just trying to contribute, understand and be part of the community. Today would be a slow day for me in Smalltak... maybe is time to take a walk a leave it for a time.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Offray
>>
>> On 08/09/16 06:00, Hernán Morales Durand wrote:
>>>
>>> I consider GNU AGPL v3 a fair license choice which protects somehow authors. After some talks with friends today, I began to consider it useless for a niche community like Smalltalk *and* solo projects. I then read all your mails, many posts in other communities, and finally asked for advices. Conclusion: The ideal license option for me was not yet invented.
>>>
>>> Now about parasite behavior and easy living for freeloaders.
>>>
>>> - I doubt Smalltalkers are in position for doing anything valuable against parasites. GPL scares a niche community. All of us having MIT code published can be stealed and we have no legal options to defend our work/authorship. That should be addressed one day.
>>>
>>> - However, I would like one day to read people releasing software under whatever license they want and not to be pointed them. That's a matter of freedom. I feel we are far away from there.
>>>
>>> - I hope we can talk about interesting Territorial features, what do you need, what could be modeled better, etc. Licensing is boring, really.
>>>
>>> I re-licensed Territorial to MIT for the nice Pharo people, for the nice Smalltalkers, people who helped me here in mailing lists, or sending supportive private messages, and for cool users with nice intentions.
>>>
>>> Hernán
>>>
>>> PS: Updated User Manual: http://bit.ly/2c4RrCJ
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
> www.feenk.com
>
> "Next time you see your life passing by, say 'hi' and get to know her."
>
>
>
>
>
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANN] Territorial Re-Licensing

kilon.alios
In reply to this post by Peter Kenny
Yes he did after my reply

"So sorry to be rude but I'm ***REALLY*** busy. Much more than you can imagine. Even more. And I feel responsible. "

So let us move on :)

On Thu, 8 Sep 2016 at 16:19, PBKResearch <[hidden email]> wrote:

Well did he? All I saw was an attempt to justify what he had said, in terms of the difficult history etc. Forceful argument is fine, but a personal attack like the one Offray quoted is unforgiveable. It could be put to bed if Stef would just say ‘sorry’ for that. But I’m not holding my breath.

 

Peter Kenny

 

From: Pharo-users [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Dimitris Chloupis
Sent: 08 September 2016 13:18
To: Any question about pharo is welcome <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Pharo-users] [ANN] Territorial Re-Licensing

 

well he did apologize

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANN] Territorial Re-Licensing

hernanmd
In reply to this post by Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas-2
Hi Offray

Ad hominem comments never help. But we all make mistakes, we are not experts in Argumentation Theory, but I think we are learning from every discussion.

Licensing has black void holes. I would prefer to read "GPL could result in lower feedback for your projects, because community size is really small compared to other OSS projects" and other factors. Or even better, we can try to build something from the discussion, like a licensing chapter with key points.

Hernán



2016-09-08 7:22 GMT-03:00 Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas <[hidden email]>:
Hi Tudor,

I recognize the impedance with mail as an expression medium and most of the time it was like you said, except when Stef addressed to me with  "It is amazing how you like talking" (is this some kind of invitation to "just shut up!"? Is that a "remainder" I have not written enough code to have a valid voice here?).

For me, if someone has no the time for a detailed response, going with: "GPL is a plague", "You can argue I don't care" or "Pharo is MIT. Period.", or fighting the person instead of fighting the argument, makes more harm that good. No clarification, because lack of energy or time, seems better that these alternative "clarifications". Not all the people is trying to start a holy war anytime makes a suggestion or shows a different position. Sometimes we're just trying to contribute and understand, even when we come from different places, interests and life paths.

Thanks for pointing the LGPL issue (so, 3 BSD, MIT, public domain are a good fit). At least I made my contribution by pointing the Etoile place where there is a *rationale* behind a license choosing that makes this licensing issues clearer for newcomers.

Energy is low today, but putting things in perspective, most of the time community is welcoming, even if particular interactions among people are not.

Cheers,

Offray



On 08/09/16 11:40, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi Offray,

I am sorry you feel down.

The wording of Stef did appear strong. However, please keep in mind that email is a terrible medium for expressing and transmitting feelings. I would kindly ask you to reconsider the emails and focus on the content and you will see that the wording was not about the external project but about the decisions that relate to the licensing of Pharo itself. As Esteban and I clarified, Pharo is MIT and will remain MIT. There is a long history of why this is so and a huge amount of effort to make it clean MIT. To keep it clean we have to be aware of the implications of another kind of a license, and our clarifications were about how we, those that work on the main Pharo code, will not touch a GPL code and that this might have a counter productive impact on the originator of the code in question (due to a lack of engagement from other people).

Please also keep in mind that we do not want to prevent people from choosing their own licenses. The decision of the license belongs exclusively to the creators of the code. We are only looking for the interests of the core of Pharo to make sure that you will continue to have whatever options you choose on top of it. And you will always be free to choose what you want for your projects.

Just a note about other licenses you mentioned: in the context of Pharo, LGPL has the same effect as GPL given that there is no concept of binary reusability in our system. So, for that purpose, we also do not touch LGPL.

A final point: when someone says that "we decided something a long time ago”, it is easy to take it as a “this is it, just take it”, but that would be a bit unfair. A more fair alternative is to understand that time is scarce and sometimes we just do not have the available energy to provide all clarifications on demand right at that point.

Please let’s focus on building things together, even if there are misunderstandings or seaming differences in opinion. We need everyone’s energy.

Cheers,
Doru


On Sep 8, 2016, at 9:53 AM, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nice to know something good came out after taking all the heat. In my case I learn about licensing with the reasons behind and not "just take it!"...
My sources of information, the main spec.st site, made my mistake about dual license a valid misinterpretation and even the idea that there are other non-viral licenses: LGPL, 3 clause BSD, public domain that can integrated in a MIT licensed project, with the rationale behind [1], seems a good thing to make explicit
[1] http://etoileos.com/dev/licensing/
Kind of down though, after seeing how a community leader can go after other people who don't share his views/knowledge and is just trying to contribute, understand and be part of the community. Today would be a slow day for me in Smalltak... maybe is time to take a walk a leave it for a time.

Cheers,

Offray

On 08/09/16 06:00, Hernán Morales Durand wrote:
I consider GNU AGPL v3 a fair license choice which protects somehow authors. After some talks with friends today, I began to consider it useless for a niche community like Smalltalk *and* solo projects. I then read all your mails, many posts in other communities, and finally asked for advices. Conclusion: The ideal license option for me was not yet invented.

Now about parasite behavior and easy living for freeloaders.

- I doubt Smalltalkers are in position for doing anything valuable against parasites. GPL scares a niche community. All of us having MIT code published can be stealed and we have no legal options to defend our work/authorship. That should be addressed one day.

- However, I would like one day to read people releasing software under whatever license they want and not to be pointed them. That's a matter of freedom. I feel we are far away from there.

- I hope we can talk about interesting Territorial features, what do you need, what could be modeled better, etc. Licensing is boring, really.

I re-licensed Territorial to MIT for the nice Pharo people, for the nice Smalltalkers, people who helped me here in mailing lists, or sending supportive private messages, and for cool users with nice intentions.

Hernán

PS: Updated User Manual: http://bit.ly/2c4RrCJ



--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.feenk.com

"Next time you see your life passing by, say 'hi' and get to know her."