Thread: [Fxruby-users] [ANN] FXRuby-1.0.28 Now Available
Status: Inactive
Brought to you by:
lyle
Menu
▾
▴
fxruby-users
|
From: <ly...@kn...> - 2004-01-20 15:47:46
|
All, The latest version of FXRuby is now available for download from the SourceForge repository: http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=20243&package_id=14608&release_id=211091 For a list of changes in this release, see: http://sourceforge.net/project/shownotes.php?group_id=20243&release_id=211091 Enjoy, Lyle |
|
From: Emmanuel T. <emm...@wa...> - 2004-01-20 15:53:12
|
ly...@kn... wrote: >All, > >The latest version of FXRuby is now available for download from the >SourceForge repository: > >http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=20243&package_id=14608&release_id=211091 > >For a list of changes in this release, see: > >http://sourceforge.net/project/shownotes.php?group_id=20243&release_id=211091 > >Enjoy, > >Lyle > on http://sourceforge.net/project/shownotes.php?group_id=20243&release_id=211091 you mention a tutorial for using the clipboard, but the link given (http://sourceforge.net/project/clipboardtut.html) triggers a 404? congratulations on the release otherwise! :O) emmanuel |
|
From: Lyle J. <jl...@cf...> - 2004-01-20 16:08:06
|
Emmanuel Touzery wrote: > on > http://sourceforge.net/project/shownotes.php?group_id=20243&release_id=211091 > you mention a tutorial for using the clipboard, but the link given > (http://sourceforge.net/project/clipboardtut.html) triggers a 404? Thanks! Fixed it. |
|
From: Rich <ri...@li...> - 2004-02-01 16:38:43
|
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 |
|
From: Lyle J. <ly...@kn...> - 2004-02-01 20:49:53
|
-----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----- |
|
From: jeroen <je...@fo...> - 2004-02-01 21:59:49
|
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. | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |
|
From: Christopher S. <csa...@pa...> - 2004-02-02 01:58:28
|
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. |
|
From: Rich <ri...@li...> - 2004-02-02 03:49:51
|
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 > |
|
From: Christopher S. <csa...@pa...> - 2004-02-02 05:57:53
|
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. |
|
From: jeroen <je...@fo...> - 2004-02-02 06:29:04
|
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. | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |
|
From: Rich <ri...@li...> - 2004-02-02 08:03:03
|
> > 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 |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X