 |
|
| Computers Forum Index » Computer Languages (Smalltalk) » PDF Framework for smalltalk systems... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Claudio Campos... |
 Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 5:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Congratulations,
It's a great contribution! ( and the model is pure poetry of smalltalk with
style...)
Claudio Campos |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ck... |
| Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 1:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 15 Mai, 04:07, "Claudio Campos" <claudio.sistem... at (no spam) gmail.com>
wrote:
Quote: Congratulations,
It's a great contribution! ( and the model is pure poetry of smalltalk with
style...)
Claudio Campos
Link, Link, link?  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Snorik... |
| Posted: Sun May 17, 2009 6:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 16 Mai, 14:42, "Frank Lesser [LSW]" <frank-les... at (no spam) lesser-
software.com> wrote:
Quote: Hi,
I think I need to clarify the term Open Source here.
There is a common definition used by the OSF which is different for
Alejandro's use.
Alejandro doesn't want to be forced to redefine his understanding of the
term - even if it is used differently in common so here follows an
explanation & definition of
Open Source how we ( Alejandro & me ) interpret it:
If you buy the product ( in case we state that Source is accessible ) you
will get access to the source.
You have already agreed when you purchased the product to the licence - and
in most cases signed a non-Disclosure-Agreement.
You have agreed further (assuming that you are a legal person doing software
business) that you are committed to us:
Only you (& your employees can make changes to the software - and this
should be the exceptional case).
You are not allowed to publish the code or to transfer the code without our
written permission to anyone else.
So, in effect, Open Source for you means that you hand out libraries
with source code included,
but only to customers having signed an NDA and paid.
You might perhaps be better advised not to call it Open Source for it
is not, in the common meaning FSF sense. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Richard Sargent... |
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 1:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: You might perhaps be better advised not to call it Open Source for it
is not, in the common meaning FSF sense.
Open Source != Free Software.
Never was, never will be. A uni-directional relationship does not imply nor
create the other direction.
As much as I prefer free, high-quality software, I have to recognize the
right to produce software and actually make a living.
(Written as someone who has been in this game since he was 15, and is now
50.)
--
Richard Sargent
5x5 Computing Solutions, Inc.
rsargent at (no spam) 5x5.on.ca
http://www.pendragonfarm.com/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| aleReimondo... |
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 12:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear Richard,
and all who has reach this level of the track!
Quote: Open Source != Free Software.
Never was, never will be. A uni-directional relationship does not imply nor
create the other direction.
I respect your opinion, and accept your point of view.
Always is possible to have a different point of
view (I mean think different).
So, imo, "Never was, never will be"... is, in practice
it was and will happen again, and again...
and it is (no compromise with our ideals)
Quote: As much as I prefer free, high-quality software, I have to recognize the
right to produce software and actually make a living.
(Written as someone who has been in this game since he was 15, and is now
50.)
It is ok to listen people that think they play games with software
if we understand they are not people of the (software) industry
(they cross the boundaries but most of the times lives
from other activities and not from what they
are talking about).
The argument can be good for someone out of the industry,
but not enough (in practice) for software professionals.
Talking about what we prefer is talking about ideals.
If we reflect on the effect of instantiating ideals (good idea[l]s)
we can instantly see that it is good to hide sub-employment
and to maintain employed people happy; contracted for boring things
and wasting (cheap)resources at work copying software without
needing the money to continue doing that (who pay the bill?)
Ideals are not wrong, the results of instantiating
them needs our continue attention.
When some people think different it means something
was not seen(missing) in the abstract idea(l).
It happen to all ideals when instantiated (made "real").
Sorry to put this paragraphs, imo we are far from the topic.
For all of you that are gaming with software, have fun!
For all of you that feel like a child with Smalltalk, have fun too!
For me... ok I will take a time with my family now.
all the best,
Ale. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Claus Dragon... |
| Posted: Fri May 22, 2009 12:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 19 Mai, 23:13, "Richard Sargent" <rsarg... at (no spam) 5x5.on.ca> wrote:
Quote: You might perhaps be better advised not to call it Open Source for it
is not, in the common meaning FSF sense.
Open Source != Free Software.
I never said so.
Quote: Never was, never will be. A uni-directional relationship does not imply nor
create the other direction.
Yes, that is what "single-directional" means.
Quote: As much as I prefer free, high-quality software, I have to recognize the
right to produce software and actually make a living.
(Written as someone who has been in this game since he was 15, and is now
50.)
Again, no one argues about that. I was just pointing out a flaw in the
naming convention.
I would simply not call this package "open source" since it is not
open source, as
defined by the free software foundation. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Reinout Heeck... |
| Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 1:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Claus Dragon wrote:
Quote: I was just pointing out a flaw in the
naming convention.
I would simply not call this package "open source" since it is not
open source, as
defined by the free software foundation.
You are bluffing ;-)
The FSF does not define that term, they are careful to use the term
'Free Software' instead:
"Our Core Work
The FSF maintains the Free Software Definition - to show clearly what
must be true about a particular software program for it to be considered
free software."
http://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software
R
- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Randal L. Schwartz... |
| Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 7:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: "Snorik" == Snorik <clauskick at (no spam) hotmail.com> writes:
You are not allowed to publish the code or to transfer the code without our
written permission to anyone else.
Snorik> So, in effect, Open Source for you means that you hand out libraries
Snorik> with source code included,
Snorik> but only to customers having signed an NDA and paid.
Snorik> You might perhaps be better advised not to call it Open Source for it
Snorik> is not, in the common meaning FSF sense.
I think your argument would be more powerful to not invoke the FSF here, but
instead refer to the Open Source Initiative, the keepers of the term "Open
Source", at http://www.opensource.org/. And I suspect they would agree that
this is an *incorrect* use of the term "open source", and should not be used
as such to avoid misleading your audience.
When you buy the PDF product, you get a source license. Not an "Open Source"
license. Nothing wrong with calling it *that*. Just don't mislead.
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn at (no spam) stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT
The time now is Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:51 pm
|
|