View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
April 26, 2005
Re: D is fast
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Unknown W. Brackets schrieb am Tue, 26 Apr 2005 11:14:54 -0700:
> 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.

Have a look at 
http://superwaba.com.br

paying users: LGPL
non-paying users: GPL

...

Thomas


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFCbovL3w+/yD4P9tIRAq9TAJ9iyO3pbHdu/LCRzAoldvYUnEOQZwCghTCT
tYtkOLiC2FATpFbkyriCP7I=
=XNSx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
April 26, 2005
Re: D is fast
You can use system magnifier tool. Why not?

But accessibility in general is not only magnification.

In case of Harmonia it is going to be a special theme - high contrast and 
with bigger fonts.

HTML as a form layout tool also helps to solve accessibility issues -
its stretchable features allows to use different form factors keeping
related information close (e.g. label/control). The same
is valid for internationalization (localization) issues.

Andrew.


"Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown@simplemachines.org> wrote in message 
news:d4m0j6$21lu$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> 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
Re: D is fast
Actually, I wanted to avoid getting into too many details, but 
obviously, that is difficult in such a topic.

As far as I can see, the the way of "abuse" of the GPL that Dave 
describes does not even go against the spirit of the GPL. In no way does 
the GPL want to prohibit making money on software. It only want to 
prevent people from selling black-box software where the buyer has no 
real control over what he bought.

Independent of that, since Andrew is working on a library, the LGPL 
might be a more adequate choice. Distributing a library as GPL is indeed 
rather restrictive and only makes sense if you want to make a political 
statement (like GNU readline) or have bigger plans with your software 
(like dual-licensing it for commercial users, as Trolltech does it with 
Qt). If the main intention is to have a *free* library, LGPL is the way 
to go.



Dave schrieb:
> 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
Re: D is fast
That's dual licensing, as I described below.

-[Unknown]


> Unknown W. Brackets schrieb am Tue, 26 Apr 2005 11:14:54 -0700:
> 
>>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.
> 
> 
> Have a look at 
> http://superwaba.com.br
> 
> paying users: LGPL
> non-paying users: GPL
> 
> ...
> 
> Thomas
April 26, 2005
Re: D is fast
The code is there. Not connected yet.
The same for acceleratros.


"bobef" <bobef@paintballforce.com> wrote in message 
news:d4l9mr$1ah8$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 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 27, 2005
Re: D is fast
Norbert Nemec wrote:

> Independent of that, since Andrew is working on a library, the LGPL 
> might be a more adequate choice. Distributing a library as GPL is indeed 
> rather restrictive and only makes sense if you want to make a political 
> statement (like GNU readline) or have bigger plans with your software 
> (like dual-licensing it for commercial users, as Trolltech does it with 
> Qt). If the main intention is to have a *free* library, LGPL is the way 
> to go.

Unfortunately, until shared library support gets baked into D on all 
supported platforms, LGPL will be just as restrictive as GPL - assuming 
one follows the common interpretation of the LGPL that linking 
statically constitutes a derivative work and requires the client app to 
be open source, while linking dynamically allows the client app to stay 
closed.
April 27, 2005
Re: D is fast
Mike Parker wrote:
> Norbert Nemec wrote:
> 
>> Independent of that, since Andrew is working on a library, the LGPL 
>> might be a more adequate choice. Distributing a library as GPL is 
>> indeed rather restrictive and only makes sense if you want to make a 
>> political statement (like GNU readline) or have bigger plans with your 
>> software (like dual-licensing it for commercial users, as Trolltech 
>> does it with Qt). If the main intention is to have a *free* library, 
>> LGPL is the way to go.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, until shared library support gets baked into D on all 
> supported platforms, LGPL will be just as restrictive as GPL - assuming 
> one follows the common interpretation of the LGPL that linking 
> statically constitutes a derivative work and requires the client app to 
> be open source, while linking dynamically allows the client app to stay 
> closed.
Also, I would tend to think that the LGPL line will be even more blurred 
with D.  Most of the people I know say "include the headers, link to the 
library and you're fine", not easy to do with D - unless you want to 
create thin D files that are header-like.

Brad
April 27, 2005
Re: D is fast
Andrew Fedoniouk schrieb:
> There are plans to create GraphicsEx based on
> http://www.antigrain.com/ but in next version.

Have you thought about using Cairo? (www.cairographics.org) This might 
give you far more performance, since it allows hardware accellerated 
backends as well (among many others) AGG does, afaik, aim more at very 
low level control and precision than at performance. (Besides, a AGG 
backend for Cairo is certain to be produced by someone, and this would 
probably also offer access to the low-level details in those points 
where you need them.)
April 27, 2005
Re: D is fast
Mike Parker schrieb:
> Unfortunately, until shared library support gets baked into D on all 
> supported platforms, LGPL will be just as restrictive as GPL - assuming 
> one follows the common interpretation of the LGPL that linking 
> statically constitutes a derivative work and requires the client app to 
> be open source, while linking dynamically allows the client app to stay 
> closed.

Guess, that's a problem of the "common interpretation" of LGPL. It is 
true, that many people draw the line at statically vs. dynamically 
linking, but that is problematic in many languages and I don't think 
that interpretation has been tested in court yet. (Even the GPL itself 
has only recently been tested for the first time.)

I guess, what should be possible in any case is to add a line to the 
LGPL for your code that explicitely allows static linking. Anyhow: GPL 
has indeed often had compatibility issues with other licenses, so it 
might be an idea to choose something else. Maybe something rather modern 
like the Mozilla license?
April 27, 2005
Re: D is fast
Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
> In fact choosen architecture (not to use system
> controls/widgets at all, as in SWING) should follow
> to high portability.

But Swing also is ugly and slow and looks out of place on every
platform, so maybe you might want to choose another role model ;)

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