Thread: Re: [bme-develop] Development issues
Status: Planning
Brought to you by:
sirmik
Menu
▾
▴
bme-develop
|
From: Sir M. <obe...@ho...> - 2004-03-17 12:18:14
|
Aloha, > > What do you think? > >Yes, put all of it on sourceforge if you're happy doing that. > Precisely, but do we have to agree on a license before we put it on sourceforge? and how do we post something under a license? just paste the license header above the file? Or can we restrict the sourceforge cvs access until we've agreed on a license.... >I will probably start the new GUI from scratch, so maybe we could split >the code into folders: >-Network >-OldGUI >-NewGUI > >I think it is quite hard to get stuff deleted from CVS. > Mmm, which classes are you gonna start on? because the problem is I'm also working on some of those classes...couldn't you change the code of Daniel's classes, or would that be too much trouble? >I think other people have mentioned it. I just often get the feeling >that less people reply to me when I'm on BeMSN, I guess that's due to >messages not arriving. > >Also, mik was on BeOS and I was using MSN 6, and we experienced a few >times where we didn't get each others messages. > I doesn't happen too often, I'm using BeMSN almost the whole time now...since I'm working on BeOS for my M. Sc. now...it's a lot stabler now, I'm also getting reports from people at BeShare about that...btw, we two people now, who offered to be beta testers...should I ask them to join this list? or post their feedback in the forums? regards, Tim _________________________________________________________________ MSN Search, for accurate results! http://search.msn.nl |
|
From: Sir M. <obe...@ho...> - 2004-03-18 16:56:03
|
Hi, >For me the GPL is too restrictive. The LPGL is less-so, but still >fairly complicated. > GPL means that the software should be distribute freely, and that all software that uses code from this program should also be distributed under gpl right? what's LGPL? >My choice would be MIT/BSD (I think that's how I registered the project >on sf, although it's no problem to change it). The license basically >says - "Here's the code, do anything you want with it, but don't sue us >if it doesn't work". The problem is it doesn't stop anyone taking all >of our code and selling it commercially. I really don't think that's >likely to happen with BeOS software though, so I'd go with the >simplicity of the MIT license. But, I believe that MIT also says something about acknowledging the makers of the program! > >I think we just need to add a comment at the top of each file. This is >from one of the OBOS files: >/* >** Copyright 2002-2003, Axel Dörfler, ax...@pi.... All >rights reserved. >** Distributed under the terms of the OpenBeOS License. >*/ > Ok hope that is everything....we have to be sure though > > > I will say for now to post their feedback in the forums. Let's wait > > until we are a little more organized on the source, the cvs server, > > license, and everything else. How about you, what do you think? > >I agree. Wait until we're a bit more organised. > Oke...told one tester already. Daniel one little remark....we have to change that....if you send a IM message you use "message" in the BMessage, and if you receive one you use "body"! regards, Tim _________________________________________________________________ Talk with your online friends with MSN Messenger http://messenger.msn.nl/ |
|
From: Simon T. <sim...@ga...> - 2004-03-18 17:29:42
|
> Hi, > > >For me the GPL is too restrictive. The LPGL is less-so, but still > >fairly complicated. > > > GPL means that the software should be distribute freely, and that all > software that uses code from this program should also be distributed > under > gpl right=3F what's LGPL=3F GPL stops people from taking the code for whatever purpose - and forces them to release whatever they write also under the GPL. That makes it harder for people like the IM Kit to take our code - as they'd be forced to use GPL too in that case. Designed to ensure the code stays free, but it doing that it restricts some of the freedoms IMHO. LGPL is less restrictive (not quite sure why) - I think it allows LGPL'ed libraries to be used in non-LGPL software. > >My choice would be MIT/BSD (I think that's how I registered the > > project > >on sf, although it's no problem to change it). The license basically > >says - "Here's the code, do anything you want with it, but don't sue > > us > >if it doesn't work". The problem is it doesn't stop anyone taking > > all > >of our code and selling it commercially. I really don't think that's > >likely to happen with BeOS software though, so I'd go with the > >simplicity of the MIT license. > > But, I believe that MIT also says something about acknowledging the > makers > of the program! Maybe, not sure. The OBOS license says that it must be reproduced with any complete copies or substantial portions of the software, I guess that means credit must be given. //--------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- // Copyright (c) 2001-2003, OpenBeOS // // Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a // copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), // to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation // the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, // and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the // Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: // // The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in // all copies or substantial portions of the Software. // // THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR // IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, // FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE // AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER // LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING // FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER // DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. //--------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- > > > >I think we just need to add a comment at the top of each file. This > > is > >from one of the OBOS files: > >/* > >** Copyright 2002-2003, Axel D=F6rfler, ax...@pi.... All > >rights reserved. > >** Distributed under the terms of the OpenBeOS License. > >*/ > > > > Ok hope that is everything....we have to be sure though Is it really that crucial=3F I don't see millions of people waiting to steal our code in case we choose the wrong license! > > > > > I will say for now to post their feedback in the forums. Let's > > > wait > > > until we are a little more organized on the source, the cvs > > > server, > > > license, and everything else. How about you, what do you think=3F > > > >I agree. Wait until we're a bit more organised. > > > Oke...told one tester already. Daniel one little remark....we have to > change > that....if you send a IM message you use "message" in the BMessage, > and if > you receive one you use "body"! > > regards, > > Tim Simon |
|
From: Daniel G. <al7...@ma...> - 2004-03-18 06:48:34
|
bme team, > > > What do you think? > > > >Yes, put all of it on sourceforge if you're happy doing that. > > > Precisely, but do we have to agree on a license before we put it on > sourceforge? and how do we post something under a license? just paste > the > license header above the file? Or can we restrict the sourceforge cvs > access > until we've agreed on a license.... Yes most definitely we need to agree on a license. Honestly I don't know much about open source licenses, GPL, LGPL, and all the others, I will have to do some research on the topic. What are your recommendations? And I don't think there is a way to restrict access to the cvs, once it's there, it's for everyone. > >I will probably start the new GUI from scratch, so maybe we could > > split > >the code into folders: > >-Network > >-OldGUI > >-NewGUI > > > >I think it is quite hard to get stuff deleted from CVS. > > > >Renaming might also be a problem, so I will ask now: Is there any > >reason for the "B" on the start of the network classes? Yes renaming stuff on cvs can be a problem. The reason of the B for the server handlers is that I was going to change everything with a B in front of it. Much like the Be API classes, but I never did it. So I ended up with two standards for class naming. We should decide which one to follow, BMsnClassName or MSNClassName, or leave it as is. > > > Mmm, which classes are you gonna start on? because the problem is I'm > also > working on some of those classes...couldn't you change the code of > Daniel's > classes, or would that be too much trouble? > > >I think other people have mentioned it. I just often get the feeling > >that less people reply to me when I'm on BeMSN, I guess that's due > > to > >messages not arriving. > > > >Also, mik was on BeOS and I was using MSN 6, and we experienced a > > few > >times where we didn't get each others messages. > > > I doesn't happen too often, I'm using BeMSN almost the whole time > now...since I'm working on BeOS for my M. Sc. now...it's a lot > stabler now, > I'm also getting reports from people at BeShare about that...btw, we > two > people now, who offered to be beta testers...should I ask them to > join this > list? or post their feedback in the forums? I will say for now to post their feedback in the forums. Let's wait until we are a little more organized on the source, the cvs server, license, and everything else. How about you, what do you think? Regards Daniel |
|
From: Simon T. <sim...@ga...> - 2004-03-18 10:34:08
|
> bme team, > > > > > What do you think=3F > > > > > >Yes, put all of it on sourceforge if you're happy doing that. > > > > > Precisely, but do we have to agree on a license before we put it on > > sourceforge=3F and how do we post something under a license=3F just > > paste > > the > > license header above the file=3F Or can we restrict the sourceforge > > cvs > > access > > until we've agreed on a license.... > Yes most definitely we need to agree on a license. Honestly I don't > know much about open source licenses, GPL, LGPL, and all the others, > I > will have to do some research on the topic. What are your > recommendations=3F And I don't think there is a way to restrict access > to > the cvs, once it's there, it's for everyone. For me the GPL is too restrictive. The LPGL is less-so, but still fairly complicated. My choice would be MIT/BSD (I think that's how I registered the project on sf, although it's no problem to change it). The license basically says - "Here's the code, do anything you want with it, but don't sue us if it doesn't work". The problem is it doesn't stop anyone taking all of our code and selling it commercially. I really don't think that's likely to happen with BeOS software though, so I'd go with the simplicity of the MIT license. I think we just need to add a comment at the top of each file. This is from one of the OBOS files: /* ** Copyright 2002-2003, Axel D=F6rfler, ax...@pi.... All rights reserved. ** Distributed under the terms of the OpenBeOS License. */ > > >I will probably start the new GUI from scratch, so maybe we could > > > split > > >the code into folders: > > >-Network > > >-OldGUI > > >-NewGUI > > > > > >I think it is quite hard to get stuff deleted from CVS. > > > > > >Renaming might also be a problem, so I will ask now: Is there any > > >reason for the "B" on the start of the network classes=3F > Yes renaming stuff on cvs can be a problem. The reason of the B for > the > server handlers is that I was going to change everything with a B in > front of it. Much like the Be API classes, but I never did it. So I > ended up with two standards for class naming. We should decide which > one to follow, BMsnClassName or MSNClassName, or leave it as is. When I write code, I use the "B" to remind me that I'm using one of the classes provided by Be. I'd prefer "MsnClassName" or "MSNClassName" (don't mind either of those). > > > > > Mmm, which classes are you gonna start on=3F because the problem is > > I'm > > also > > working on some of those classes...couldn't you change the code of > > Daniel's > > classes, or would that be too much trouble=3F > > > > >I think other people have mentioned it. I just often get the > > > feeling > > >that less people reply to me when I'm on BeMSN, I guess that's due > > > to > > >messages not arriving. > > > > > >Also, mik was on BeOS and I was using MSN 6, and we experienced a > > > few > > >times where we didn't get each others messages. > > > > > I doesn't happen too often, I'm using BeMSN almost the whole time > > now...since I'm working on BeOS for my M. Sc. now...it's a lot > > stabler now, > > I'm also getting reports from people at BeShare about that...btw, > > we > > two > > people now, who offered to be beta testers...should I ask them to > > join this > > list=3F or post their feedback in the forums=3F > I will say for now to post their feedback in the forums. Let's wait > until we are a little more organized on the source, the cvs server, > license, and everything else. How about you, what do you think=3F I agree. Wait until we're a bit more organised. > Regards > > Daniel Simon |
