On 10/04/2017 03:48 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote:
>> On 3 Oct 2017, at 06:10, Jimmie Houchin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Good and valid questions.
>> Primarily consumer side. I am a longtime user of Linux, 20+ years. I prefer and advocate for open source software even when required to use Windows/Mac. So in general in personal life with friends, family, acquaintances if the subject is computers or software and the opportunity is reasonable I will advocate for open source software. Many times simply as an opportunity to educate people who may not know or be misinformed.
>> I am a business man, an employee of a company. My employer is purely a Windows shop. No development is a part of my day job.
>> All of my use of development software is personal projects. I have not released any software. Nothing has reached a point to release. I am however wanting to release a couple of projects this next year. One I hope to make money off of the use of and not the sale of. The other is personal, not business software. I hope to have both in a releasable state sometime in the next 6 months.
>> My problem has always been indecision on what I thought would be the best language for the project. I have always loved Pharo/Smalltalk. But sometimes I explore other languages. Sometimes because they already have libraries and bindings that would make the project easier. This is still a very reasonable possibility. I am not a professional. I only program in my spare time. Due to my job, sometimes that is very little.
>> Regardless, the software I hope to get to a releasable stage I do plan on releasing as MIT. It is the license I prefer and believe in. One need not program or release software in order to be an advocate.
>> I have no problem with someone writing closed source software. That is their personal or business choice. Myself, I have spent way to much money on software which was closed source and the company disappeared or changed directions. Then I am stuck with software that has no future.
> This is a bit my point: if you respect closed-source software and commercial restrictive licenses, you should also respect GPL and friends as valid choices and not describe them with negative adjectives.
> On ethical grounds, I like GPL a lot. It is also very successful (Linux, GNU). It is a valid choice. And yes, in certain license constructions that could mean you cannot use certain software.
Regarding negative adjectives. I asked for positive ones that are
equivalent to the negative ones. I also demonstrated that the negative
ones are quite often used positively in a number of areas beyond
software. However, there is no better or even equivalent term for viral
I only brought up this discussion to see if the new Pharo 7
bootstrapping would open up the options to use GPL code. See, I was
trying to do something positive with GPL source code. But the GPL
license prevents this from happening. And because I respect licenses and
laws. I will honor their choice, and their license and completely remove
them from the option. I have not seen any way to port GPL software and
use it from Pharo. That was my hope for this discussion. GPLv2 and GPLv3
don't even play nice with each other.
I respect all choices. I also believe there are consequences for choices
made. Anybody can choose to make their software GPL. I also can choose
not to view the source of any of it because of the consequences of
viewing that source code. Which means ultimately that GPL will have many
people like me who opt out of their sources. I respect the right they
have to make that choice. They also need to respect mine.
We will probably have to agree to disagree on some of the above. I am
okay with that. People have different views.
> On a more positive note: I personally think that a system like Pharo is the ultimate open source incarnation as you can literally read and change each and every part in the same language (modulo the VM and plugins, but I am on the as-much-in-image as-possible side). I guess very, very few people actually looked inside the Linux kernel, C library or C compiler, let alone a driver, as these are much too complex and too far removed from your own program. In Pharo you can stumble into code in very deep areas such as graphics, the compiler, the debugger, etc ...
I do love your positive note. You have aptly demonstrated your Pharo
rock star status. I love everything you have done, even if I don't
understand all your code. :) Maybe when I grow up, I can code like you.
(Probably not. And I am not that young. I have children older than half
the people here.)
This ultimate open source incarnation of Pharo and its ability to find,
see, change everything is a thing of beauty. Which is why I have always
struggled when I look outside of Pharo and hear the benefits of whatever
language. Then I go and try that language. It always drives me back to
Pharo. The ability to discover classes and methods that do what you want
is the best I have been able to find anywhere. I always struggle with
file based languages. What editor is best. (I have never been an Emacs
or Vim person.) How do I find the classes and methods I need to use. ...
I come running home to Pharo.
I think Pharo just keeps getting better. I can't wait for all of the git
tools and Pharo 7 bootstrapping to mature. It will be nice.
Thanks for engaging in the conversation.
In reply to this post by Ben Coman
Thanks for the reply. I am not very familiar with compiled code. I just wanted to explore and see if there were any ways that Pharo and GPL sources could work together. The only way I see that can happen is to have your GPL code provide something like a REST API and communicate via networking. Not very friendly for some small situations.
On 10/04/2017 08:09 AM, Ben Coman wrote:
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|