Index » General » D is fast (page 3)

April 26, 2005
Andrew Fedoniouk schrieb:
> Nothing spectacular there in fact. All drawing done
> through Graphics object (attached).
> All target platforms have correspondent native*** function implemented.
> This Graphics is a common denominator for all GUI platforms.

Doesn't that mean one just had to write an OpenGL Graphics object to be multiplatform?


Regards,
Nils
April 26, 2005
> Doesn't that mean one just had to write an OpenGL Graphics object to be multiplatform?

Yes, it is possible to write Graphics based on OpenGL primitives.

> ... to be multiplatform?

Ummm....

See, there are four (and only four) native group of functions in files:

native.application - startup/shutdown, GUI message pump, standard dialogs.
native.graphics - per se
native.exchange - clipboard support and the like.
native.window - top-level window bindings.

I think that GLUT or GLUI could be used as an example for other than Graphics functions. I am not sure though.

As an idea: Ben's Hinkle MinWin library could be used as a porting layer. At least partially.

Andrew.


"Nils Hensel" <nils.hensel@web.de> wrote in message news:d4kjmm$jto$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Andrew Fedoniouk schrieb:
>> Nothing spectacular there in fact. All drawing done
>> through Graphics object (attached).
>> All target platforms have correspondent native*** function implemented.
>> This Graphics is a common denominator for all GUI platforms.
>
> Doesn't that mean one just had to write an OpenGL Graphics object to be multiplatform?
>
>
> Regards,
> Nils


April 26, 2005
No Tab support? I mean keyboard works fine if I have focus on item but can I switch between them with the keyboard? Also is there some level of customization available for Harmonia? I mean I don't like this orange look and these gradient buttons and stuff. Also I'm not sure about the tabs... Can I change some of these?

Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
> I second on that :)
> 
> Teasing :) demo is here:
> http://terrainformatica.com/screenshots/HarmoniaDemo.zip
> (e.g. try to move splitter)
> 
> After loading and starting you should see this picture:
> http://terrainformatica.com/screenshots/harmonia.png
> 
> Andrew.
> 
> 
> 
April 26, 2005
One, single (the most important to me) question: Does it work on GNU/Linux
and/or MacOSX?

-- 
...........
Dejan Lekic
  http://dejan.lekic.org

April 26, 2005
Andrew Fedoniouk schrieb:
> "How are you planning on licensing Harmonia when you release it?"
> 
> Free. Just copuple of wishe like: a) to not remove copyright notices. b) to place a link to our site on
> derived products.

I would strongly encourage you to pick some well-known open source license. There are many software projects out there where the author had the best intentions to make the software "free", and lateron, legal issues popped up with some home-grown license. Just using some well-known license like GPL, BSD, MIT or others is the easiest way to avoid that problem.

Best known is probably GPL. Anyhow, this license restricts the use of your library to projects that are open source as well. LGPL would be an alternative, if you deliberately want to allow people to use your library in proprietary projects and perhaps make money even though you don't see a penny. Both licenses are worked out very elaborately. Other licenses are simpler and less elaborate or just follow more specific needs.

A good compilation of alternative licenses can be found at
	http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.php

A bit more commented but also more political is the compilation by GNU:
	http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

The wish a) is usually covered by any license. As is the general demand for recognition of you as the original author in any derived work.

The wish b) is simple but also rather unclear as it stands. Many licenses try to clarify this wish in one way or another. Many do it in a way that fails to meet certain standards for free licenses.

In general you don't have to become an expert on licensing issues, but it will certainly pay off to spend a little though on it now, so you and the users of your library will not have the hassle lateron and you neither throw away your own rights nor block the most flexible use of your library.

Greetings,
Norbert
April 26, 2005
"GNU/Linux and/or MacOSX?"

Not yet but planned. Porting
was in my mind from the very beginning.
In fact choosen architecture (not to use system
controls/widgets at all, as in SWING) should follow
to high portability.

I will appreciate if anybody can take care Linux and Mac OS ports. I think it is a right time now to start with them.

Andrew.

"Dejan Lekic" <leka@entropy.tmok.com> wrote in message news:d4lcnb$1dkf$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> One, single (the most important to me) question: Does it work on GNU/Linux
> and/or MacOSX?
>
> -- 
> ...........
> Dejan Lekic
>  http://dejan.lekic.org
> 


April 26, 2005
In article <d4lldv$1n01$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Norbert Nemec says...
>
>Andrew Fedoniouk schrieb:
>> "How are you planning on licensing Harmonia when you release it?"
>> 
>> Free. Just copuple of wishe like: a) to not remove copyright notices. b) to
>> place a link to our site on
>> derived products.
>
<snip>

Norbert is right - it would make sense to check out the links and find a library already in use that suits your intent. However...

>
>Best known is probably GPL. Anyhow, this license restricts the use of your library to projects that are open source as well. LGPL would be an alternative, if you deliberately want to allow people to use your library in proprietary projects and perhaps make money even though you don't see a penny. Both licenses are worked out very elaborately. Other licenses are simpler and less elaborate or just follow more specific needs.
>

Even if you license it GPL, people can still make money off of it (and you may still not see a penny), even if they follow the GPL to a 'T'.

In your case, the GPL basically says that the developer of an application using your library has to make the source code for their application available to people whom they distribute the application to (w/o restriction), even if they charge a bundle for it.

It also says that the people they distribute the application to must then in turn distribute the source code with the binaries (w/o restriction) and so on down the line. If the original developer charges a bundle for an application using your library, then the entity buying it is much less likely to ever re-distribute your library unless they in turn get paid something.

If part of your intent is to make your library available to as many people as possible, then the GPL can actually end-up working against that because there are those who don't want to use GPL in their applications because of all of the legal B.S. associated with it (e.g.: distributing all of their expensive source code in exchange for using a GPL library for merely a part of it).

The original developer of the application (or anyone buying it) using your library is not obligated at all to making your library publically available for download, giving it away free, or anything like that.

You could still license your library GPL and not let anyone download it unless they paid for it. Of course, after they buy it, they can do whatever they want with the binaries and/or source code. That's the original intent of the GPL - to give people who pay for software ultimate control over what they buy.

IMO, if it is your intent to share the code to this library in as non-restrictive a way as possible, pick a license that does not make it necessary for the users to distribute their source code as well. You can even say in the license something like "...if you use this library in your application, then the Harmonia library source code must be made available upon request to the user of your application...".

In that way, people reluctant to use GPL'd libraries will not see a problem with using your library, yet you can bind them to a source code distribution policy for your library through the terms of your license. That will have the effect of giving your library the largest potential distribution, if that is your intent.


April 26, 2005
I don't see how that would work.  If you sold a product or library, and gave it to the client under the GPL... they would have full rights to redistribute it.

In essence, they could then go and redsistribute it for free.  In other words, they could give it to other, potential clients.

Many people dual license open source projects, because of the plaugish nature of the GPL, like MySQL.  But, as you say, it's sometimes possible to go with a less restrictive license.

It's obviously important to note that you don't have to release your software under one and only one license.

In any case, there are actually some that describe the case of copyright statements.  In a project of mine, we use a license we spent some time approving with the lawyer, which is mostly open source but has other restrictions like the copyright one.  It's not always a bad idea to do this.

-[Unknown]
April 26, 2005
Does this mean that my good friend, who is legally very blind, and can only see the computer screen with the magnifier on at good strength won't like or wish to use any of the programs one might write with this library, as the widgets wouldn't benefit from the system's accessability features?

-[Unknown]


> All controls are "windowless" - means that they are not using system widgets.
April 26, 2005
"Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown@simplemachines.org> wrote in message news:d4m0er$21lu$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>I don't see how that would work.  If you sold a product or library, and gave it to the client under the GPL... they would have full rights to redistribute it.
>
> In essence, they could then go and redsistribute it for free.  In other words, they could give it to other, potential clients.
>

Yes but they would be less likely to do that if they were charged for the derivitive work .. and my point was that licensing with the GPL doesn't mean someone can't charge for derivitive works. It's been done.

The larger point was really that if the intent is to make the lib. as widely distributed as possible, then the GPL is not the best of OSS licenses for that.

>
> Many people dual license open source projects, because of the plaugish nature of the GPL, like MySQL.  But, as you say, it's sometimes possible to go with a less restrictive license.
>
> It's obviously important to note that you don't have to release your software under one and only one license.
>
> In any case, there are actually some that describe the case of copyright statements.  In a project of mine, we use a license we spent some time approving with the lawyer, which is mostly open source but has other restrictions like the copyright one.  It's not always a bad idea to do this.
>

There-in lies the rub - you had to get and (presumably) pay for a lawyer for all of that licensing.. Been there, done that, and the lawyers made more money off of that project than the programmers did! <g>

Agreed, though. Sometimes it is needed.

> -[Unknown]


1 2 3 4 5
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home