What issue could possibly exist for using a GPL editor? It's not being shipped from a company...
Many people, even some lawyers, don't understand the GPL. :/ It elicits this kind of knee-jerk reaction in people.
Light Table 0.7.0
11–20 of 109 posts
Re: Light Table 0.7.0
#12Aaand the menus are gone?!
I'm on Win8.1 x64
Re: Light Table 0.7.0
#13What issue could possibly exist for using a GPL editor? It's not being shipped from a company...
Yeah, I did not get that either. I also do not understand why the GPLv3 would necessitate a contributor agreement, but MIT would not. I always thought those agreements were necessary so that one institution has copyright and can change the license without getting approval from every author. That applies to any free license, doesn't it? Anyway, I think they just wanted to change to MIT before new authors commit without an CA, after which they cannot change it so easily.
Re: Light Table 0.7.0
#14I've considered using Light Table for a while but the fact that there isn't a simple way to install it on Linux (either via apt or another package manager or a packaged version like a deb/rpm) keeps me from bothering.
So downloading a tarball and unpacking it is not simple enough?
Re: Light Table 0.7.0
#15What issue could possibly exist for using a GPL editor? It's not being shipped from a company...
I know, I was surprised as well. And if there are legitimate issues, isn't this exactly the dual-licensing opportunity that open source projects dream of?
Firstly, dual-licensing requires that all contributors sign a CA, which is enough of a annoyance that many minor fixes just don't get contributed at all.
Secondly, Mike Innes (http://junolab.org/) is one of the big contributors to Light Table and has told us that many of the commercial users of Julia are uncomfortable with GPL code and that changing to MIT would help adoption.
Re: Light Table 0.7.0
#16What issue could possibly exist for using a GPL editor? It's not being shipped from a company...
Yeah, I did not get that either. I also do not understand why the GPLv3 would necessitate a contributor agreement, but MIT would not. I always thought those agreements were necessary so that one institution has copyright and can change the license without getting approval from every author. That applies to any free license, doesn't it? Anyway, I think they just wanted to change to MIT before new authors commit withou…
The decisions were largely separate.
The goal of having a CA was to leave us the option of selling commercial plugins in the future. We no longer plan to do that so we got rid of it.
Separately, we kept hearing that the GPL is a hurdle to adoption at some companies so we switched to MIT.
Re: Light Table 0.7.0
#17I am not really sure what Light Table is and the announcement does not provide any information as such.
Re: Light Table 0.7.0
#18Aaand the menus are gone?! I'm on Win8.1 x64
Same here, Win 7 x64. Ctrl+Space opens up the list of all actions, so you can make your way from there.
A bit of an annoyance, but apparently being able to evaluate and update multiple files in a Clojure project works now, so I'm too happy to care.
Re: Light Table 0.7.0
#19Good news! I'm going to switch from Emacs some of the time, and hopefully 100% eventually. The thing that bugged me was how uneven the way editor would react in some cases. For me it didn't have the reliability I need. I was interested in the fundamentals and found underneath is code-mirror. I thought eventually all code-editing should move into a browser, but isn't quite there yet. Hopefully this will move to 1.0 an…
Hi, just out of curiosity what pushed you away from Emacs? I was planning to learn how to use it but your comment made me think...
Re: Light Table 0.7.0
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I did not get that either. I also do not understand why the GPLv3 would necessitate a contributor agreement, but MIT would not. I always thought those agreements were necessary so that one institution has copyright and can change the license without getting approval from every author. That applies to any free license, doesn't it? Anyway, I think they just wanted to change to MIT before new authors commit withou…
The decisions were largely separate. The goal of having a CA was to leave us the option of selling commercial plugins in the future. We no longer plan to do that so we got rid of it. Separately, we kept hearing that the GPL is a hurdle to adoption at some companies so we switched to MIT.
We were hearing concerns that the CA was worded in our favor and was one-way, in that people could contribute and we could take their work and commercialize it down the road without open sourcing it.