fxruby-users — General-purpose discussion list for FXRuby

[Fxruby-users] FXRuby on QNX

[Joel V. <vj...@PA...>]

Hi, I've got Fox working on QNX6.2.1, and I've got ruby working, but 
FXRuby doesn't build for me. Anybody else try this?

The problems atm have to so with constness in C++:

/usr/include/string.h: In function `void * memchr(void *, int, unsigned 
int)':
/usr/include/string.h:125: declaration of C function `void * memchr(void 
*, int, unsigned int)' conflicts with
/usr/include/string.h:49: previous declaration `const void * 
memchr(const void *, int, unsigned int)' here

...and more like that

When you include string.h with __cplusplus defined, these declarations 
become inconsistent. I tried a minimal .cpp example (based on hello.cpp 
from Fox) that includes "string.h", but couldn't recreate the problem. 
So probably something is misconfigured in FXRuby, but what precisely...

[Fxruby-users] Re: How to build FXRuby on Mac OS X (was: Mac OS X)

[Lyle J. <ly...@kn...>]

On Feb 6, 2004, at 5:08 PM, Gabriel Pack wrote:

> I'm sorry to bug everyone if this has already been covered before; but  
> I'm new, and I would really like to get FreeRIDE running on Mac OS X  
> Panther (10.3.2).
>
> I've tried to make sense of the instructions here  
> (http://rwiki.jin.gr.jp/cgi-bin/rw-cgi.rb?cmd=view; 
> name=FreeRIDE+on+X11+for+Mac+OS+X), but I'm missing something.   
> Basically, when I try to test my installation of the FXRuby extension  
> using irb, I get the following:
>
> irb(main):001:0> require 'fox'
> dyld: ruby Undefined symbols:
> __ZTVN10__cxxabiv117__class_type_infoE
> __ZTVN10__cxxabiv120__si_class_type_infoE
> ___gxx_personality_v0
> Trace/BPT trap
>
> Can anyone offer any help?

I have gotten it to work using the following recipe, but I don't yet  
understand why it works. So take that for what you will ;)

Anyways, the trick has to do with building the FOX library itself.  
First, set the CPPFLAGS and LDFLAGS environment variables as necessary  
to pick up the header files and libraries for optional things like the  
PNG libraries and such. For example, since I'm using fink, those things  
are installed under /sw:

	setenv CPPFLAGS -I/sw/include
	setenv LDFLAGS -L/sw/lib

Next, configure FOX as usual, e.g.

	./configure --prefix=/sw --with-opengl=opengl

Now here's the tricky part. As a side effect of the configure step, you  
should now have a shell script named "libtool" in the fox-1.0.x  
subdirectory. You need to replace this automatically generated version  
with this patched version:

	http://www.knology.net/~lyle/libtool.gz

There's basically one line's difference between this one and the one  
that "configure" produces, and I'm still not clear on the significance  
of that difference -- other than it makes FXRuby work properly. Once  
you've replaced this "libtool", go ahead and build & install FOX as  
usual:

	make
	sudo make install

Now, build FXRuby following the normal instructions and all should be  
well.

Yes, some day real soon now I'm going to do my homework and figure out  
why that change in the libtool script fixes things. If you already know  
the answer, that's even better ;)

Hope this helps,

Lyle

Re: [Fxruby-users] Re: a color object

[Martin H. <ma...@zs...>]

On Wednesday 04 February 2004 04:04, Lyle Johnson wrote:

> .... One concern, however, is how to handle return values
> for methods that currently return colors as Integers. That is, I think
> to preserve back-compatibility those methods would need to continue to
> return color values as integers. Any thoughts?
>

Two that I can think of - one is to provide an alternative method=20
(xxx_as_color) that returns a colour object rather than an integer, or th=
e=20
other is to add to_color to the Integer class which returns an instance o=
f=20
itself as a colour object?

I don't find either very attractive but they would offer both integer and=
=20
colour retrieval.

Another is maybe to allow a class/global setter -=20
Fox.returnColorsAsObject=3D(boolean) and maybe use that to determine what=
 to=20
return from each FXRuby function?=20

Although probably more work from a development point of view, I actually=20
prefer this approach because it does not clutter the rest of the API, nor=
=20
interfere with the Integer class...

Cheers,
Martin

[Fxruby-users] Re: a color object

[Lyle J. <ly...@kn...>]

On Jan 30, 2004, at 11:06 PM, meinrad recheis wrote:

> #color object (united fox functions)
> class Color
> 	attr_accessor :r, :g, :b, :a
> 	#construct by red, green, blue and (optionally) alpha value
> 	def initialize r=0, g=0, b=0, a=nil
> 		@r,@g,@b,@a=r,g,b,a
> 	end

<snip>

I have added this as a change request on the list at SourceForge:

	https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php? 
func=detail&aid=890161&group_id=20243&atid=370243

I could change things so that methods that currently expect an Integer  
for a FOX color value will accept either an Integer *or* an FXColor  
instance, e.g.

	widget.textColor = Fox.FXRGB(255, 0, 0)

and:

	widget.textColor = Fox::FXColor.new(255, 0, 0)

are equivalent. One concern, however, is how to handle return values  
for methods that currently return colors as Integers. That is, I think  
to preserve back-compatibility those methods would need to continue to  
return color values as integers. Any thoughts?

Lyle

(Semi-OT) Re: [Fxruby-users] Licensing question - I can make money, right?

[Rich <ri...@li...>]

>
> I'd suggest that you get explicit permission from the various authors to
do
> what you intend to do.
>

Good point, and easy enough to do. Thanks!!

> btw, as Ruby is an interpreted language, I'm curious as to how you are
going
> to hide your intellectual property from prying eyes. I was under the,
perhaps
> incorrect, impression that it is technically impossible. Doesn't that
render

3 easy steps:

1. Make sure that the 'prying' eyes aren't able to get your client - even if
they get your source code.

2. The 1% that could get the source wouldn't bother with competing - I'm a
little company.

3. Plus a lot of the projects I'm involved in are one time deals. After I'm
payed they are free to do what they want with what they have, I just don't
want to have to be _required_ to 'give' them the source code. Technically
I've given it to them already, but they don't know that, and I don't want to
have to tell them that. I want them to come to me for modifications /
scope-creep.

Consider it social-engineering... for defense not offense.

> these discussions somewhat moot especially when one remembers that there
is
> absolutely no restriction on selling GPL software or services.
>

I'm curious as to how this applies. I'm not asking how it applies to be
obnoxious - I really don't know. I think what you're trying to tell me is
that I give them the source code to the project, and simply charge them for
the time I've spent creating the code... rather than charging them for the
code? That's what I had intended to do. Again, I just don't want to be
_forced_ to 'release' my source code for a project involving FXRuby where I
made money.

I really appreciate the discussion we're having, but I wonder if we're not
the only ones who care... maybe this would be better left for our brains
instead of the email servers... :-) Thanks!

-Rich

Re: [Fxruby-users] Licensing question - I can make money, right?

[jeroen <je...@fo...>]

On Sunday 01 February 2004 11:57 pm, Christopher Sawtell wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:51, Rich wrote:
> > Then if my target audience were Windows-only, I wouldn't have to worry
> > about any of the points you've addressed - is that right?
>
> As far as FOX and FXRuby are concerned it would appear that you are
> correct.
>
> The Ruby interpreter itself is licenced under either the full GPL or by the
> text at http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/LICENSE.txt
>
> I'd suggest that you get explicit permission from the various authors to do
> what you intend to do.
>
> btw, as Ruby is an interpreted language, I'm curious as to how you are
> going to hide your intellectual property from prying eyes. I was under the,
> perhaps incorrect, impression that it is technically impossible. Doesn't
> that render these discussions somewhat moot especially when one remembers
> that there is absolutely no restriction on selling GPL software or
> services.

Indeed.  GPL or LGPL says nothing about price. Note that it also doesn't
say you have to distribute to *everybody*.  If you distribute it only to
your customers, or in-house, then only those recipients need to receive 
the source code of the LGPL/GPL covered code, as far as I understand it.

The LICENSE says so right at the beginning:

	For example, if you distribute copies of the library, whether gratis
	or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that we gave
	you.  You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source
	code.  If you link other code with the library, you must provide
	complete object files to the recipients, so that they can relink them
	with the library after making changes to the library and recompiling
	it.  And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.

Note that the recipients of your code have full rights to LGPL/GPL
covered code, but the same is not true of your OWN copyrighted code.

So recipients of your "combined work" may redistribute everything,
EXCEPT your copyrighted Ruby code...


Just because you can read it as plain text doesn't mean its 
not under copyright; most every book you ever read is under copyright,
and while you can copy fragments from them, the entire work may
only be distributed by the original author, or his agents.




	Regards,


			- Jeroen





-- 
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Copyright (C) 23:50 12/11/2003 Jeroen van der Zijp.   All Rights Reserved. |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Re: [Fxruby-users] Licensing question - I can make money, right?

[Christopher S. <csa...@pa...>]

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:51, Rich wrote:
> Then if my target audience were Windows-only, I wouldn't have to worry
> about any of the points you've addressed - is that right?
As far as FOX and FXRuby are concerned it would appear that you are correct.

The Ruby interpreter itself is licenced under either the full GPL or by the 
text at http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/LICENSE.txt

I'd suggest that you get explicit permission from the various authors to do 
what you intend to do.

btw, as Ruby is an interpreted language, I'm curious as to how you are going 
to hide your intellectual property from prying eyes. I was under the, perhaps 
incorrect, impression that it is technically impossible. Doesn't that render 
these discussions somewhat moot especially when one remembers that there is 
absolutely no restriction on selling GPL software or services.



> -Rich
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christopher Sawtell" <csa...@pa...>
> To: <fxr...@li...>
> Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 6:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [Fxruby-users] Licensing question - I can make money, right?
>
> > On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 05:39, Rich wrote:
> > > I've looked into the FXRuby license (LGPL) and the FOX license
> > > (modified LGPL).
> > >
> > > Other than that - a program using FXRuby would have the OpenGL file
> > > included, which has no license for software developers...
> > >
> > > ... so - those are all of the licenses - right?
> >
> > No, on Linux you forget the LGPL licence on the glibc library which
>
> underlies
>
> > the whole kit and kaboodle.
> >
> > > If I understand the LGPL correctly, I can use LGPL'd work in my
>
> standalone
>
> > > EXE and not have to license my work under LGPL at all.
> >
> > No, not necessarily, it depends.
> >
> > > I can close the source for all of my work - right?
> >
> > Yes, of _your_ work, but not that of the other contributors if they have
> > licenced their work under the LGPL.
> >
> > The spirit of the LGPL is that it allows you to distribute your work
> > secretively, yet at the same time it gives the end user the right to
>
> upgrade
>
> > the LGPL licenced libraries to which your work is linked. This, in
> > effect, means that you have to distribute your work as a binary which
> > dynamically loads the LGPL licenced libraries as shared object libraries.
> > Static
>
> linking
>
> > the whole application in a GNU environment is not allowed. In practice
>
> this
>
> > only applies on Linux and if using cygwin under Windows, because on the
>
> other
>
> > platforms the libc library is either a commercially licenced product,
> > e.g.
>
> on
>
> > MS Windows, or is subject to the BSD licence which allows you to do more
>
> or
>
> > less whatever you want, provided you don't (ab)use the name of the
> > Regents
>
> or
>
> > other contributors in advertising.
> >
> > --
> > Sincerely etc.
> > Christopher Sawtell
> >
> > NB. This PC runs Linux. If you find a virus apparently from me,
> > it has forged the e-mail headers on someone else's machine.
> > Please do not notify me when this occurs. Thanks.
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004
> > Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration
> > See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA.
> > http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn
> > _______________________________________________
> > Fxruby-users mailing list
> > Fxr...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fxruby-users
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004
> Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration
> See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA.
> http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn
> _______________________________________________
> Fxruby-users mailing list
> Fxr...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fxruby-users

-- 
Sincerely etc.
Christopher Sawtell

NB. This PC runs Linux. If you find a virus apparently from me,
it has forged the e-mail headers on someone else's machine.
Please do not notify me when this occurs. Thanks.

Re: [Fxruby-users] Licensing question - I can make money, right?

[Rich <ri...@li...>]

Then if my target audience were Windows-only, I wouldn't have to worry about
any of the points you've addressed - is that right?

-Rich

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Christopher Sawtell" <csa...@pa...>
To: <fxr...@li...>
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Fxruby-users] Licensing question - I can make money, right?


> On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 05:39, Rich wrote:
> > I've looked into the FXRuby license (LGPL) and the FOX license (modified
> > LGPL).
> >
> > Other than that - a program using FXRuby would have the OpenGL file
> > included, which has no license for software developers...
> >
> > ... so - those are all of the licenses - right?
> No, on Linux you forget the LGPL licence on the glibc library which
underlies
> the whole kit and kaboodle.
>
> > If I understand the LGPL correctly, I can use LGPL'd work in my
standalone
> > EXE and not have to license my work under LGPL at all.
> No, not necessarily, it depends.
>
> > I can close the source for all of my work - right?
> Yes, of _your_ work, but not that of the other contributors if they have
> licenced their work under the LGPL.
>
> The spirit of the LGPL is that it allows you to distribute your work
> secretively, yet at the same time it gives the end user the right to
upgrade
> the LGPL licenced libraries to which your work is linked. This, in effect,
> means that you have to distribute your work as a binary which dynamically
> loads the LGPL licenced libraries as shared object libraries. Static
linking
> the whole application in a GNU environment is not allowed. In practice
this
> only applies on Linux and if using cygwin under Windows, because on the
other
> platforms the libc library is either a commercially licenced product, e.g.
on
> MS Windows, or is subject to the BSD licence which allows you to do more
or
> less whatever you want, provided you don't (ab)use the name of the Regents
or
> other contributors in advertising.
>
> -- 
> Sincerely etc.
> Christopher Sawtell
>
> NB. This PC runs Linux. If you find a virus apparently from me,
> it has forged the e-mail headers on someone else's machine.
> Please do not notify me when this occurs. Thanks.
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004
> Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration
> See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA.
> http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn
> _______________________________________________
> Fxruby-users mailing list
> Fxr...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fxruby-users
>

Re: [Fxruby-users] Licensing question - I can make money, right?

[Christopher S. <csa...@pa...>]

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 05:39, Rich wrote:
> I've looked into the FXRuby license (LGPL) and the FOX license (modified
> LGPL).
>
> Other than that - a program using FXRuby would have the OpenGL file
> included, which has no license for software developers...
>
> ... so - those are all of the licenses - right?
No, on Linux you forget the LGPL licence on the glibc library which underlies 
the whole kit and kaboodle.

> If I understand the LGPL correctly, I can use LGPL'd work in my standalone
> EXE and not have to license my work under LGPL at all.
No, not necessarily, it depends.

> I can close the source for all of my work - right?
Yes, of _your_ work, but not that of the other contributors if they have 
licenced their work under the LGPL.

The spirit of the LGPL is that it allows you to distribute your work 
secretively, yet at the same time it gives the end user the right to upgrade 
the LGPL licenced libraries to which your work is linked. This, in effect, 
means that you have to distribute your work as a binary which dynamically 
loads the LGPL licenced libraries as shared object libraries. Static linking 
the whole application in a GNU environment is not allowed. In practice this 
only applies on Linux and if using cygwin under Windows, because on the other 
platforms the libc library is either a commercially licenced product, e.g. on 
MS Windows, or is subject to the BSD licence which allows you to do more or 
less whatever you want, provided you don't (ab)use the name of the Regents or 
other contributors in advertising.

-- 
Sincerely etc.
Christopher Sawtell

NB. This PC runs Linux. If you find a virus apparently from me,
it has forged the e-mail headers on someone else's machine.
Please do not notify me when this occurs. Thanks.

Re: [Fxruby-users] Licensing question - I can make money, right?

[jeroen <je...@fo...>]

On Sunday 01 February 2004 02:49 pm, Lyle Johnson wrote:
> Let me preface my response to Rich by saying that I try to avoid
> discussions of licensing issues as much as possible. In an ideal world,
> people would just do the right thing, and give credit where credit is
> due. And I am sure that Rich is one of those people. But it is a
> necessary evil for me to choose a particular license (in this case, the
> Lesser GPL) for FXRuby because people don't always do the right thing.
> Having said all of that, my intent is for people to grant as much
> freedom as possible for people to use FXRuby to develop useful software
> applications, commercial or otherwise.
>
> On Feb 1, 2004, at 10:39 AM, Rich wrote:
> > I've looked into the FXRuby license (LGPL) and the FOX license
> > (modified
> > LGPL).
>
> OK. For reference to others reading this, copies of those licenses can
> be found on-line here:
>
> 	http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html
>
> and here:
>
> 	http://www.fox-toolkit.org/license.html
>
> > Other than that - a program using FXRuby would have the OpenGL file
> > included, which has no license for software developers...
>
> If your FXRuby-based program makes use of the Ruby/OpenGL extension
> (which is something separate from FXRuby), you would need to confirm
> its license obligations with the author of that extension. I can't
> confirm that it has "no license for software developers". Furthermore,
> since Ruby/OpenGL is useless if not linked to some underlying OpenGL
> library, the license for that library may come into play as well.
>
> > ... so - those are all of the licenses - right?
>
> Don't forget about the licenses for any supporting libraries, such as
> those for PNG and JPEG image support, if your code requires them.
>
> > If I understand the LGPL correctly, I can use LGPL'd work in my
> > standalone
> > EXE and not have to license my work under LGPL at all.
>
> According to my understanding of the definitions in section zero of the
> LGPL, a standalone executable program that incorporates LGPL'd code is
> a "work based on the library" and is subject to the terms of the LGPL.
> That doesn't mean that you have to license *your* work under the LGPL,
> but it does introduce some obligations on your part. Those obligations
> are discussed in section 6 of the LGPL.

Yes, you could say it is a work BASED on the Library if it CONTAINS a
piece of the Library.

> This in contrast to a "work that uses the library" (described in
> section 5 of the LGPL). An executable that doesn't "stand alone", but
> needs some LGPL'd library to be installed to work, appears to fall into
> this category and is not subject to the terms of the LGPL.

If you just dynamically link to it, it becomes a work USING the Library.


The FOX Addendum to the Lesser GPL license tries to smooth over this
somewhat artificial linking-technology distinction.

What we really want to accomplish in the FOX License Addendum is to
ensure that the community may benefits from any improvements that
may have been made to the FOX library itself [hence the UNMODIFIED
clause].


> > I can close the source for all of my work - right?
>
> Yes, that's how I read it (see for example point 6a of the LGPL).
>
> > I know that the modified version of the LGPL for FOX says that I need
> > to
> > include the sentence
> >
> > "This software uses the FOX Toolkit Library
> > (http://www.fox-toolkit.org)."
> > and that if I do that I can statically link to an unmodified version
> > of the
> > FOX library...
> >
> > ... now if FOX had to do that to allow users to bundle their library,
> > why
> > didn't FXRuby need to do the same?
>
> The relationship between FXRuby and FOX (in terms of licensing) is that
> FXRuby is "a work based on the library" and not "a work that uses the
> library", where "the library" in question is FOX. That is to say,
> FXRuby doesn't contain any of the FOX source code, but does depend on
> its presence to actually work.

FXRuby is licensed under LGPL; FOX has a slightly more relaxed license
than FXRuby (see LICENSE_ADDENDUM), but that does not help you in case
you need both FXRuby and FOX, in terms of simplifying the logistics of 
distributing your application:- you would have to ship the FXRuby library
as DLL or shared library, even though you could link statically against
FOX.


> Now, technically, the precompiled versions of FXRuby for Windows are
> statically linked with an unmodified version of FOX, and so those
> should somehow incorporate the statement described in part 2(c) of the
> FOX license addendum. I don't know that I'm explicitly doing so and, if
> not, I will correct that ASAP.

He'd still be subject to the usual Lesser GPL which pertains to FXRuby.

Now, please see Lesser GPL point (6) as to distributing libraries covered
under Lesser GPL.  

> > Thanks in advance for any opinions / insights / facts that I can get
> > as a
> > response, and thanks for letting me ramble a bit on this question, I'm
> > new
> > to the LGPL.
>
> Thanks for asking, and please let me know if you have more specific
> questions about you can and can't do with FOX and FXRuby. [I am Cc'ing
> Jeroen on this in case I've made any misstatements about FOX's
> license.] We are both pretty reasonable guys, and neither of us wants
> to do anything to intentionally restrict the widespread adoption of FOX
> and FXRuby, blah blah blah.

Everything you said about FOX's License addendum appears correct; to rephrase
it in my own words:

	1) The FOX License addendum allows static linking against UNMODIFIED
	   version of FOX Library.


	2) But subject to advertising clause.  This is because its harder 
	   to determine what was linked in so you need to tell the user.

	   It to some degree protects you against LGPL purists because
	   the LGPL purists may be able to discover that you have NOT
	   violated the more relaxed FOX license, even though you may
	   have statically linked.


	3) If (1) and (2) are not acceptable or can not be met, then we 
	   revert to Lesser GPL.  The only time I expect anyone to use
	   this option is if you for some reason have to heavily modify
	   the FOX library (i.e. beyond makefiles and such).  

  	   In this case we insist on Lesser GPL so we can potentially 
	   feed such improvements back into the original distribution.


Please contact me for any further questions.



		- Jeroen





-- 
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Copyright (C) 23:50 12/11/2003 Jeroen van der Zijp.   All Rights Reserved. |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Re: [Fxruby-users] Licensing question - I can make money, right?

[Lyle J. <ly...@kn...>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Let me preface my response to Rich by saying that I try to avoid 
discussions of licensing issues as much as possible. In an ideal world, 
people would just do the right thing, and give credit where credit is 
due. And I am sure that Rich is one of those people. But it is a 
necessary evil for me to choose a particular license (in this case, the 
Lesser GPL) for FXRuby because people don't always do the right thing. 
Having said all of that, my intent is for people to grant as much 
freedom as possible for people to use FXRuby to develop useful software 
applications, commercial or otherwise.

On Feb 1, 2004, at 10:39 AM, Rich wrote:

> I've looked into the FXRuby license (LGPL) and the FOX license 
> (modified
> LGPL).

OK. For reference to others reading this, copies of those licenses can 
be found on-line here:

	http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html

and here:

	http://www.fox-toolkit.org/license.html

> Other than that - a program using FXRuby would have the OpenGL file
> included, which has no license for software developers...

If your FXRuby-based program makes use of the Ruby/OpenGL extension 
(which is something separate from FXRuby), you would need to confirm 
its license obligations with the author of that extension. I can't 
confirm that it has "no license for software developers". Furthermore, 
since Ruby/OpenGL is useless if not linked to some underlying OpenGL 
library, the license for that library may come into play as well.

> ... so - those are all of the licenses - right?

Don't forget about the licenses for any supporting libraries, such as 
those for PNG and JPEG image support, if your code requires them.

> If I understand the LGPL correctly, I can use LGPL'd work in my 
> standalone
> EXE and not have to license my work under LGPL at all.

According to my understanding of the definitions in section zero of the 
LGPL, a standalone executable program that incorporates LGPL'd code is 
a "work based on the library" and is subject to the terms of the LGPL. 
That doesn't mean that you have to license *your* work under the LGPL, 
but it does introduce some obligations on your part. Those obligations 
are discussed in section 6 of the LGPL.

This in contrast to a "work that uses the library" (described in 
section 5 of the LGPL). An executable that doesn't "stand alone", but 
needs some LGPL'd library to be installed to work, appears to fall into 
this category and is not subject to the terms of the LGPL.

> I can close the source for all of my work - right?

Yes, that's how I read it (see for example point 6a of the LGPL).

> I know that the modified version of the LGPL for FOX says that I need 
> to
> include the sentence
>
> "This software uses the FOX Toolkit Library 
> (http://www.fox-toolkit.org)."
> and that if I do that I can statically link to an unmodified version 
> of the
> FOX library...
>
> ... now if FOX had to do that to allow users to bundle their library, 
> why
> didn't FXRuby need to do the same?

The relationship between FXRuby and FOX (in terms of licensing) is that 
FXRuby is "a work based on the library" and not "a work that uses the 
library", where "the library" in question is FOX. That is to say, 
FXRuby doesn't contain any of the FOX source code, but does depend on 
its presence to actually work.

Now, technically, the precompiled versions of FXRuby for Windows are 
statically linked with an unmodified version of FOX, and so those 
should somehow incorporate the statement described in part 2(c) of the 
FOX license addendum. I don't know that I'm explicitly doing so and, if 
not, I will correct that ASAP.

> Thanks in advance for any opinions / insights / facts that I can get 
> as a
> response, and thanks for letting me ramble a bit on this question, I'm 
> new
> to the LGPL.

Thanks for asking, and please let me know if you have more specific 
questions about you can and can't do with FOX and FXRuby. [I am Cc'ing 
Jeroen on this in case I've made any misstatements about FOX's 
license.] We are both pretty reasonable guys, and neither of us wants 
to do anything to intentionally restrict the widespread adoption of FOX 
and FXRuby, blah blah blah.

Lyle
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFAHWZsFXV/hD6oMd0RApuXAKCKUmEvskx9+fK+wPsQpuN5PEiYkwCghBDf
BxmZ1vmjJJpC3fhVFkEdeW8=
=6Qk0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Fxruby-users] Licensing question - I can make money, right?

[Rich <ri...@li...>]

I've looked into the FXRuby license (LGPL) and the FOX license (modified
LGPL).

Other than that - a program using FXRuby would have the OpenGL file
included, which has no license for software developers...

... so - those are all of the licenses - right?

If I understand the LGPL correctly, I can use LGPL'd work in my standalone
EXE and not have to license my work under LGPL at all.

I can close the source for all of my work - right?


I know that the modified version of the LGPL for FOX says that I need to
include the scentence

"This software uses the FOX Toolkit Library (http://www.fox-toolkit.org)."
and that if I do that I can statically link to an unmodified version of the
FOX library...

... now if FOX had to do that to allow users to bundle their library, why
didn't FXRuby need to do the same?

Thanks in advance for any opinions / insights / facts that I can get as a
response, and thanks for letting me ramble a bit on this question, I'm new
to the LGPL.

-Rich

Re: [Fxruby-users] subclassing FXColor

[meinrad r. <mei...@gm...>]

Lyle Johnson wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> On Jan 30, 2004, at 5:29 PM, meinrad recheis wrote:
> 
>> id like to subclass FXColor to add some more functionality. like this:
>>
>> class Color < Fox::FXColor
>> def initialize r, g, b
>> end
>> end
>>
>> but i don't know how to subclass Bignum (that is what FXRGB returns ...)
>> how could i do this to integrate with fxruby?
> 
> 
> Fox::FXColor should really be a Ruby module and not a class; you can't 
> create instances of it and use them in any meaningful way. And as you 
> already noted, we already have a way to construct color values from the 
> red, green and blue (and optionally alpha) components, e.g.
> 
>     color = Fox.FXRGB(r, g, b)
> 
> or
> 
>     color_with_some_alpha = Fox.FXRGBA(r, g, b, a)
> 
> It's not clear what advantage a full-blown FXColor class would offer.
[...]

it is the OO-paradigma that gives many advantages by encapsulating data 
(the color value) and methods that operate on that data (FXRGB, 
FXREDVALUE, etc ...) in an object!

i now see that FXRuby expects bignum where FXColor is stated, so the 
question is how to subclass bignum (and that does not belong to this list).

thanks anyways,
meinrad

Re: [Fxruby-users] subclassing FXColor

[Lyle J. <ly...@kn...>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On Jan 30, 2004, at 5:29 PM, meinrad recheis wrote:

> id like to subclass FXColor to add some more functionality. like this:
>
> class Color < Fox::FXColor
> def initialize r, g, b
> end
> end
>
> but i don't know how to subclass Bignum (that is what FXRGB returns 
> ...)
> how could i do this to integrate with fxruby?

Fox::FXColor should really be a Ruby module and not a class; you can't 
create instances of it and use them in any meaningful way. And as you 
already noted, we already have a way to construct color values from the 
red, green and blue (and optionally alpha) components, e.g.

	color = Fox.FXRGB(r, g, b)

or

	color_with_some_alpha = Fox.FXRGBA(r, g, b, a)

It's not clear what advantage a full-blown FXColor class would offer.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFAG8S2FXV/hD6oMd0RAk8PAJ4oeFiVMEqLxK2TS/Cl5aspqMyBkQCffDQs
6LS+dXpYVkI7LzeluNxjaxU=
=sL3l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Fxruby-users] subclassing FXColor

[meinrad r. <mei...@gm...>]

dear lyle,

id like to subclass FXColor to add some more functionality. like this:

class Color < Fox::FXColor
def initialize r, g, b
end
end

but i don't know how to subclass Bignum (that is what FXRGB returns ...)
how could i do this to integrate with fxruby?

cheers
- mr

Re: [Fxruby-users] Embedding a Windows ActiveX Control using Fox?

[Martin H. <ma...@zs...>]

On Wednesday 28 January 2004 19:22, ly...@kn... wrote:
> > If anyone has any ideas I would be appreciative - I don't mind rollin=
g my
> > own if I have to (presumably by first extending Fox then FXRuby), but=
 it
> > feels to me that this would be a non trivial task unless there is alr=
eady
> > some mapping of Win32 to Fox stuff?
>
> I don't know if there's a way to do this or not, although you might als=
o
> ask on the foxgui-users list to see if anyone's tried it in C++ code. [=
I
> know the question has come up before.]
>

Thanks for the info Lyle, I'll ask around on foxgui.
As soon as I find something out I'll report back with details...

Martin

Re: [Fxruby-users] Embedding a Windows ActiveX Control using Fox?

[<ly...@kn...>]

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:58:45 +0000, Martin Hart <ma...@zs...> wrote :

> If anyone has any ideas I would be appreciative - I don't mind rolling my own 
> if I have to (presumably by first extending Fox then FXRuby), but it feels to 
> me that this would be a non trivial task unless there is already some mapping 
> of Win32 to Fox stuff?

I don't know if there's a way to do this or not, although you might also ask
on the foxgui-users list to see if anyone's tried it in C++ code. [I know
the question has come up before.]

If you do come up with a solution, please do share with the rest of us ;) It
would be nice if there were some straightforward way of handling this from Ruby.

[Fxruby-users] Embedding a Windows ActiveX Control using Fox?

[Martin H. <ma...@zs...>]

Hi all,

We have a ruby client/server program that uses FXRuby for its UI.  A=20
requirement has come in to embed an ActiveX control into the windows vers=
ion=20
of our client program.

Is this possible with the current FXRuby/Fox implementation?  I know that=
 I=20
could wrap the control inside a DLL and use Win32OLE to call it, but that=
=20
would leave the control in its own window and not embedded inside the=20
application.

If anyone has any ideas I would be appreciative - I don't mind rolling my=
 own=20
if I have to (presumably by first extending Fox then FXRuby), but it feel=
s to=20
me that this would be a non trivial task unless there is already some map=
ping=20
of Win32 to Fox stuff?

Cheers,
Martin

[Fxruby-users] [ANN] Policy Change: Posting Restricted to List Subscribers Only

[<ly...@kn...>]

All,

In an effort to avoid e-mail worms et al, I've just changed the policy for
both the fxruby-announce and fxruby-users mailing lists so that only list
subscribers can post. [Because we haven't seen much (any?) trash on the
lists until today, I guess I assumed that this was the default policy.]

Thanks for your understanding, and please let me know if you see anything
else unusual on the list before I catch it...

Lyle

Re: [Fxruby-users] Test

[Lyle J. <jl...@cf...>]

Robert McGovern wrote:

> Hmm, don't do anything with that attachment. Rather suspicious that it
> contains a file called document.pif. Repeat don't run it.

I thought that the mailing list permissions were set that only 
subscribers could post, but obviously I was wrong. Sorry for the 
oversight; I have just corrected this problem and we shouldn't get any 
more junk like this from now on.

RE: [Fxruby-users] Test

[Robert M. <ro...@ta...>]

||The message contains Unicode characters and has been sent as a binary
||attachment.

Hmm, don't do anything with that attachment. Rather suspicious that it
contains a file called document.pif. Repeat don't run it.

If you want to look at it safely use (if you use windows) the command prompt
to rename it (either ren or move). You cannot use explorer (certainly on XP)
as it lets you change the document name but retains the .pif extension.

Looking at the file in Ultraedit, towards the very end of it are the
following references:

KERNEL32.DLL ADVAPI32.dll MSVCRT.dll USER32.dll WS2_32.dll  LoadLibraryA
GetProcAddress  ExitProcess   RegCloseKey   memset  wsprintfA

There isn't much clear text in it, apart from a reference to notepad, Data,
Profile.

There is a header in it "1.24 UPX!" which marks it as compressed by "The
Ultimate Packer for eXecutables" -- http://upx.sourceforge.net/

I'd try and break more data out but I need some sleep. If anyone does look
into the file after uncompressing it, let me know I'd like to know more
about it. Otherwise I'll have a crack tomorrow.

Rob

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.566 / Virus Database: 357 - Release Date: 22/01/2004
 

[Fxruby-users] Test

[<maj...@pe...>]

The message contains Unicode characters and has been sent as a binary attachment.

Re: [Fxruby-users] FXTreeList: Core dump when exiting

[Lyle J. <ly...@kn...>]

On Jan 25, 2004, at 11:20 AM, Joel VanderWerf wrote:

> Try upgrading to a more recent ruby snapshot:

<snip>

If this happens to work properly under Ruby 1.9, I'm afraid it's by 
coincidence only. I understand the fundamental problem underlying this 
bug (the "tree list crashes when Ruby shuts down" bug) and just haven't 
hit on the proper solution yet. In short, the problem is that when the 
Ruby interpreter shuts down, the remaining objects are 
garbage-collected in an unpredictable order. That can cause parts of 
the tree list widget (specifically, some of the tree items) to be 
destroyed before they would be under normal circumstances, and it's not 
always obvious how to account for that.

I haven't tried out the CVS for Ruby 1.9 yet, and I will of course take 
your word for it that it doesn't crash there -- but I think that's just 
good luck that may turn on us again in the future ;) I'm going to focus 
some more attention on this problem (which is larger than the specific 
tree list problem alone) and try to come up with a good solution before 
the next FXRuby release.

Re: [Fxruby-users] FXTreeList: Core dump when exiting

[Joel V. <vj...@PA...>]

Christian von Mueffling wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 03:14:23PM +0100, Chris Mueffling wrote:
> 
> 
>>As soon as I find some spare time I'll try to break this down into
>>a smaller example.
> 
> 
> Ok, did it. The problem seems to be the usage of 'addItemLast' to add an item.
> If I use 'addItemFirst' instead, no problems.
> 
> Just execute the enclosed code and close the window =>
> 
> [...]table_test.rb:74: [BUG] Segmentation fault
> ruby 1.8.1 (2003-12-25) [i686-linux-gnu]

Try upgrading to a more recent ruby snapshot:

$ ruby-1.9.0 -v tl.rb
ruby 1.9.0 (2004-01-08) [i686-linux]
$ ruby-1.8.1 -v tl.rb
ruby 1.8.1 (2003-12-25) [i686-linux]
include/FXRuby.h:286: FXASSERT(!NIL_P(obj)) failed.
tl.rb:72: [BUG] Segmentation fault
ruby 1.8.1 (2003-12-25) [i686-linux]

zsh: abort      ruby-1.8.1 -v tl.rb


If that doesn't help, which version of FXRuby are you using?

[Fxruby-users] FXTreeList: Core dump when exiting

[Christian v. M. <chr...@pd...>]

Hello!

On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 03:14:23PM +0100, Chris Mueffling wrote:

> As soon as I find some spare time I'll try to break this down into
> a smaller example.

Ok, did it. The problem seems to be the usage of 'addItemLast' to add an item.
If I use 'addItemFirst' instead, no problems.

Just execute the enclosed code and close the window =>

[...]table_test.rb:74: [BUG] Segmentation fault
ruby 1.8.1 (2003-12-25) [i686-linux-gnu]

------- snip snip snip ---------------------------------------------------------------
#!/usr/bin/env ruby

require "fox"
include Fox

class TestTreeWindow < FXMainWindow

  class ProjectTreeItem < FXTreeItem
    def initialize(name, id)
      super(name)
      @id = id
    end
    attr_reader :id
  end # class ProjectTreeItem

  def initialize(app)
    super(app, "Tree Test", nil, nil, DECOR_ALL, 0, 0, 0, 0)
    __build
  end

  def create
    super
    show(PLACEMENT_SCREEN)
  end # def create

  private

  def __build
    @treelist = FXTreeList.new(self, 0, nil, 0,
                               HSCROLLING_OFF|TREELIST_BROWSESELECT|TREELIST_SHOWS_LINES|TREELIST_SHOWS_BOXES|
                               TREELIST_ROOT_BOXES|LAYOUT_FILL_X|LAYOUT_FILL_Y)
    populate_tree
  end

  ##
  # Fill tree with project names.
  #
  def populate_tree

    @projects = [ 
      { :name => "Top 1", :id => 1, :children => [], },
      { :name => "Top 2", :id => 5, :children => [], }
    ]

    @treelist.clearItems
    @projects.each { |project|
      populate_tree_rec(nil, project)
    }
  end
  def populate_tree_rec(parent, project)
    child = @treelist.addItemLast(parent, 
                                  ProjectTreeItem.new(project[:name], project[:id]))
    project[:children].each { |subproject|
      populate_tree_rec(child, subproject)
    }
  end
  
end

# Start the whole thing
if __FILE__ == $0
  # Make application
  application = FXApp.new("TestApp", "FoxTest")
  
  # Make window
  TestTreeWindow.new(application)
  
  # Create app
  application.create
  
  # Run
  application.run

end
--------- snip snip snip -------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
chris