September 11
On 11/09/2017 2:58 PM, Vadim Lopatin wrote:
> On Monday, 11 September 2017 at 13:41:39 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
>> Needs more work but... https://github.com/Devisualization/spew/tree/master/src/utils/cf/spew/bindings/x11 yeah.
> 
> Have you created this binding yourself w/o using of Deimos code?

Indeed.

Some of the files might be a bit mixed up and some others missing.
But steal if you wish. I have no claim to it as far as I'm concerned.

Its also a bit untested without a loader.

September 12
On Monday, 11 September 2017 at 12:36:50 UTC, Vadim Lopatin wrote:
> On Monday, 4 September 2017 at 17:54:36 UTC, Vadim Lopatin wrote:
>> Contributors to DUB package nomad-software/x11
>>
>> nomad-software
>> weltensturm
>> Geod24
>> MartinNowak
>> BBasile
>> rikkimax
>>
>> Additionally, contributors to Deimos/libX11
>>
>> growlercab
>> bioinfornatics
>> skilion
>> CyberShadow
>> Faianca
>> Flamaros
>> PhilipWitte
>> edmccard
>> arukuka
>> IanWizard
>> WalterBright
>
> Looks like recreating of binding from scratch based on C headers could be faster than getting confirmation from all of contributors.

We solved the issue **in less than 24 hours**:

https://github.com/nomad-software/x11/blob/master/LICENSE

Most of the "code owners" agreed to change the license.
The list of pseudo has been really useful to ping everybody in one shot.
The Social Network aspect of Github has helped much i believe.
September 13
On Tuesday, 12 September 2017 at 17:30:42 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
> On Monday, 11 September 2017 at 12:36:50 UTC, Vadim Lopatin wrote:
>> On Monday, 4 September 2017 at 17:54:36 UTC, Vadim Lopatin wrote:
>>> Contributors to DUB package nomad-software/x11
>>>
>>> nomad-software
>>> weltensturm
>>> Geod24
>>> MartinNowak
>>> BBasile
>>> rikkimax
>>>
>>> Additionally, contributors to Deimos/libX11
>>>
>>> growlercab
>>> bioinfornatics
>>> ....
>>> IanWizard
>>> WalterBright
>>
>> Looks like recreating of binding from scratch based on C headers could be faster than getting confirmation from all of contributors.
>
> We solved the issue **in less than 24 hours**:
>
> https://github.com/nomad-software/x11/blob/master/LICENSE
>
> Most of the "code owners" agreed to change the license.
> The list of pseudo has been really useful to ping everybody in one shot.
> The Social Network aspect of Github has helped much i believe.

Cool! Very fast! I didn't believe it can be done.

DlangUI does not violate license anymore :)

September 13
On 9/13/17 12:27 AM, Vadim Lopatin wrote:
> On Tuesday, 12 September 2017 at 17:30:42 UTC, Basile B. wrote:

>> We solved the issue **in less than 24 hours**:
>>
>> https://github.com/nomad-software/x11/blob/master/LICENSE
>>
>> Most of the "code owners" agreed to change the license.
>> The list of pseudo has been really useful to ping everybody in one shot.
>> The Social Network aspect of Github has helped much i believe.
> 
> Cool! Very fast! I didn't believe it can be done.
> 
> DlangUI does not violate license anymore :)
> 

Shouldn't the bindings be licensed identical to the actual library code? I mean the header license isn't as important as the actual code license. And I thought it was MIT license for X11?

-Steve
September 13
On Wednesday, 13 September 2017 at 15:15:11 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> Shouldn't the bindings be licensed identical to the actual library code?

The library code isn't being distributed, so I don't think it matters.
September 13
On 9/13/17 11:48 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Wednesday, 13 September 2017 at 15:15:11 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> Shouldn't the bindings be licensed identical to the actual library code?
> 
> The library code isn't being distributed, so I don't think it matters.

Technically no. You can let the user of the bindings do his own research and find out that libx11 really isn't Boost licensed, and that he has to pay careful attention to what the *actual* license for libX11 is. Note BTW, the C headers are included in the distribution, and those are NOT boost licensed. I'm not a lawyer, so I have no idea the compatibility implications between the two.

Or you could just inform the user of the discrepancy, and let him avoid wasted time. Or just license the same as the original library.

When I first read this change of license from GPL to Boost, I thought there was a significant problem here. But it's much more innocuous, since neither the real library is GPL nor the bindings need to be GPL. However, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to use boost rather than the X11 license.

In any case, consider this as somewhat of a warning -- try to license your bindings the same as the original library, or you may cause significant problems for your users unnecessarily.

-Steve
September 13
On Wednesday, 13 September 2017 at 17:55:43 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> Note BTW, the C headers are included in the distribution, and those are NOT boost licensed. I'm not a lawyer, so I have no idea the compatibility implications between the two.

Thanks for the heads up, they've now been removed.
Next ›   Last »
1 2 3