Menu
▾
▴
xmlvm-users — For current and interested XMLVM users, for public discussions and anouncements.
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2009 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(29) |
Aug
(75) |
Sep
(32) |
Oct
(147) |
Nov
(31) |
Dec
(49) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 |
Jan
(46) |
Feb
(35) |
Mar
(148) |
Apr
(33) |
May
(53) |
Jun
(46) |
Jul
(60) |
Aug
(44) |
Sep
(135) |
Oct
(23) |
Nov
(68) |
Dec
(42) |
| 2011 |
Jan
(94) |
Feb
(55) |
Mar
(114) |
Apr
(78) |
May
(64) |
Jun
(10) |
Jul
(31) |
Aug
(2) |
Sep
(25) |
Oct
(13) |
Nov
(8) |
Dec
(24) |
| 2012 |
Jan
(5) |
Feb
(33) |
Mar
(31) |
Apr
(19) |
May
(24) |
Jun
(23) |
Jul
(14) |
Aug
(15) |
Sep
(12) |
Oct
(3) |
Nov
(4) |
Dec
(19) |
| 2013 |
Jan
(8) |
Feb
(20) |
Mar
(4) |
Apr
(2) |
May
(1) |
Jun
(2) |
Jul
|
Aug
(1) |
Sep
(2) |
Oct
(1) |
Nov
(4) |
Dec
|
| 2014 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(6) |
Apr
(1) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2015 |
Jan
(7) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
(6) |
| 2016 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(3) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2019 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(2) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: Wolfgang K. <wol...@xm...> - 2009-10-28 09:44:42
|
Panayotis,
what exactly do you mean by saying "doesn't work"? I assume you ran that
code from within Apples emulator and caught an exception. Did you have a
look into the console tool to see the error message produced? Please
post that message that message to the list so that we can investigate it.
-- Wolfgang
Panayotis Katsaloulis wrote:
> I have this sample code:
>
> float q = 8;
> System.out.println("q= " + q);
>
>
> This code doesn't work :(
> Why?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
> is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
> developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay
> ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
> _______________________________________________
> xmlvm-users mailing list
> xml...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users
>
|
|
From: Sascha H. <sa...@gm...> - 2009-10-28 09:43:13
|
What is the Error message you get?
On Wednesday, October 28, 2009, Panayotis Katsaloulis
<pan...@pa...> wrote:
> I have this sample code:
>
> float q = 8;
> System.out.println("q= " + q);
>
>
> This code doesn't work :(
> Why?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
> is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
> developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay
> ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
> _______________________________________________
> xmlvm-users mailing list
> xml...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users
>
|
|
From: Panayotis K. <pan...@pa...> - 2009-10-28 09:14:08
|
I have this sample code:
float q = 8;
System.out.println("q= " + q);
This code doesn't work :(
Why?
|
|
From: Arno P. <ar...@pu...> - 2009-10-26 21:40:02
|
yes. Inderjeet Singh wrote: > Just to clarify: do you mean that the generated output (.m and .h files) > is no longer under GPL? > > Thanks > Inder > > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Arno Puder <ar...@pu... > <mailto:ar...@pu...>> wrote: > > > Interesting, thanks for the link. Then we will remove the sentence in > the text I sent earlier. > > Arno > > > Björn Caroll wrote: > > I have been searching for a answer to the question of the > generated code > > and found this link. > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput > > > > /Björn > > Inderjeet Singh skrev: > >> > >> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Markus Heberling > <ma...@ti... <mailto:ma...@ti...> > >> <mailto:ma...@ti... <mailto:ma...@ti...>>> wrote: > >> > >> I would understand it in this way: > >> > >> The resulting Obj/C source (the *.m and *.h files) is always > under > >> GPL. The original java code can remain under any license you > want, > >> as long as you don't link to xmlvm files in there (import > >> org.xmlvm.iphone.*). > >> > >> > >> This seems strange. GPL project typically dont force the output > to be > >> under GPL. Can you even enforce it via your license? > >> What prevents anyone from forking XMLVM as another GPL project, but > >> generate output to be non-GPL? > >> > >> It seems to me that only thing that is part of the output binary > file > >> and can be forced to be under GPL is the compatibility library. > >> > >> Thanks > >> Inder > >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA > >> is the only developer event you need to attend this year. > Jumpstart your > >> developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market > and stay > >> ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register > now! > >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> xmlvm-users mailing list > >> xml...@li... > <mailto:xml...@li...> > >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users > >> > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA > > is the only developer event you need to attend this year. > Jumpstart your > > developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market > and stay > > ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference > > _______________________________________________ > > xmlvm-users mailing list > > xml...@li... > <mailto:xml...@li...> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA > is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your > developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and > stay > ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference > _______________________________________________ > xmlvm-users mailing list > xml...@li... > <mailto:xml...@li...> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users > > |
|
From: Inderjeet S. <ind...@gm...> - 2009-10-26 20:54:09
|
Just to clarify: do you mean that the generated output (.m and .h files) is no longer under GPL? Thanks Inder On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Arno Puder <ar...@pu...> wrote: > > Interesting, thanks for the link. Then we will remove the sentence in > the text I sent earlier. > > Arno > > > Björn Caroll wrote: > > I have been searching for a answer to the question of the generated code > > and found this link. > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput > > > > /Björn > > Inderjeet Singh skrev: > >> > >> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Markus Heberling <ma...@ti... > >> <mailto:ma...@ti...>> wrote: > >> > >> I would understand it in this way: > >> > >> The resulting Obj/C source (the *.m and *.h files) is always under > >> GPL. The original java code can remain under any license you want, > >> as long as you don't link to xmlvm files in there (import > >> org.xmlvm.iphone.*). > >> > >> > >> This seems strange. GPL project typically dont force the output to be > >> under GPL. Can you even enforce it via your license? > >> What prevents anyone from forking XMLVM as another GPL project, but > >> generate output to be non-GPL? > >> > >> It seems to me that only thing that is part of the output binary file > >> and can be forced to be under GPL is the compatibility library. > >> > >> Thanks > >> Inder > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA > >> is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your > >> developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and > stay > >> ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! > >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> xmlvm-users mailing list > >> xml...@li... > >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users > >> > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA > > is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your > > developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay > > ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference > > _______________________________________________ > > xmlvm-users mailing list > > xml...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA > is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your > developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay > ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference > _______________________________________________ > xmlvm-users mailing list > xml...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users > |
|
From: Sascha H. <neb...@gm...> - 2009-10-26 20:39:11
|
Not-subscribed e-mail. |
|
From: Sascha H. <sa...@xm...> - 2009-10-26 18:54:55
|
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Jacob Nordfalk <jac...@gm...>wrote: > This is very fine, thank you for clarifying it all. > > In my case, I can tell my boss there is a max cap of $300 (the donation) > which we can even wait by paying until we have a release ready product (at > which we will probably have contributed so much that we won't have to do the > donation anyway). I'm very happy. > This is a very important point, yes. As XMLVM is OpenSource you an try out and see what it does. If it doesn't work, you don't have to use and pay for it. So there is actually no risk involved. > (I'm still hoping to start iPhone development, but the decision might long > to get taken) > > > 2009/10/26 Arno Puder <ar...@pu...> > > XMLVM is released under the GPL license. If you use XMLVM to translate >> your application, the resulting source code will also be under the GPL >> license. > > > Regarding whether its the normal GPL mechanism (that a linked GPL library > forces the source code using it to be GPL) or some other enforcement > mechanism (like the sentence above), I cant see it do any practical > difference. > > You should consider the hypothetical possibility that someone makes a > non-GPL version of the libraries, in which case you would need to change to > another enforcement mechanism. > > Thank you > Jacob > > > > -- > Jacob Nordfalk > एस्पेरान्तो के हो? http://www.esperanto.org.np/. > Memoraĵoj de KEF -. http://kef.saluton.dk/memorajoj/ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA > is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your > developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay > ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference > _______________________________________________ > xmlvm-users mailing list > xml...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users > > |
|
From: Jacob N. <jac...@gm...> - 2009-10-26 18:36:46
|
This is very fine, thank you for clarifying it all. In my case, I can tell my boss there is a max cap of $300 (the donation) which we can even wait by paying until we have a release ready product (at which we will probably have contributed so much that we won't have to do the donation anyway). I'm very happy. (I'm still hoping to start iPhone development, but the decision might long to get taken) 2009/10/26 Arno Puder <ar...@pu...> > XMLVM is released under the GPL license. If you use XMLVM to translate > your application, the resulting source code will also be under the GPL > license. Regarding whether its the normal GPL mechanism (that a linked GPL library forces the source code using it to be GPL) or some other enforcement mechanism (like the sentence above), I cant see it do any practical difference. You should consider the hypothetical possibility that someone makes a non-GPL version of the libraries, in which case you would need to change to another enforcement mechanism. Thank you Jacob -- Jacob Nordfalk एस्पेरान्तो के हो? http://www.esperanto.org.np/. Memoraĵoj de KEF -. http://kef.saluton.dk/memorajoj/ |
|
From: Arno P. <ar...@pu...> - 2009-10-26 18:01:43
|
Interesting, thanks for the link. Then we will remove the sentence in the text I sent earlier. Arno Björn Caroll wrote: > I have been searching for a answer to the question of the generated code > and found this link. > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput > > /Björn > Inderjeet Singh skrev: >> >> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Markus Heberling <ma...@ti... >> <mailto:ma...@ti...>> wrote: >> >> I would understand it in this way: >> >> The resulting Obj/C source (the *.m and *.h files) is always under >> GPL. The original java code can remain under any license you want, >> as long as you don't link to xmlvm files in there (import >> org.xmlvm.iphone.*). >> >> >> This seems strange. GPL project typically dont force the output to be >> under GPL. Can you even enforce it via your license? >> What prevents anyone from forking XMLVM as another GPL project, but >> generate output to be non-GPL? >> >> It seems to me that only thing that is part of the output binary file >> and can be forced to be under GPL is the compatibility library. >> >> Thanks >> Inder >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA >> is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your >> developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay >> ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> xmlvm-users mailing list >> xml...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA > is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your > developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay > ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference > _______________________________________________ > xmlvm-users mailing list > xml...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users |
|
From: Björn C. <bj...@ca...> - 2009-10-26 17:53:36
|
I have been searching for a answer to the question of the generated code and found this link. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput /Björn Inderjeet Singh skrev: > > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Markus Heberling <ma...@ti... > <mailto:ma...@ti...>> wrote: > > I would understand it in this way: > > The resulting Obj/C source (the *.m and *.h files) is always under > GPL. The original java code can remain under any license you want, > as long as you don't link to xmlvm files in there (import > org.xmlvm.iphone.*). > > > This seems strange. GPL project typically dont force the output to be > under GPL. Can you even enforce it via your license? > What prevents anyone from forking XMLVM as another GPL project, but > generate output to be non-GPL? > > It seems to me that only thing that is part of the output binary file > and can be forced to be under GPL is the compatibility library. > > Thanks > Inder > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA > is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your > developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay > ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > xmlvm-users mailing list > xml...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users > |
|
From: Arno P. <ar...@pu...> - 2009-10-26 17:24:50
|
a license only defines terms and conditions. It is our prerogative where this license is being applied to. Arno Inderjeet Singh wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Markus Heberling <ma...@ti... > <mailto:ma...@ti...>> wrote: > > I would understand it in this way: > > The resulting Obj/C source (the *.m and *.h files) is always under > GPL. The original java code can remain under any license you want, > as long as you don't link to xmlvm files in there (import > org.xmlvm.iphone.*). > > > This seems strange. GPL project typically dont force the output to be > under GPL. Can you even enforce it via your license? > What prevents anyone from forking XMLVM as another GPL project, but > generate output to be non-GPL? > > It seems to me that only thing that is part of the output binary file > and can be forced to be under GPL is the compatibility library. > > Thanks > Inder > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA > is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your > developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay > ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > xmlvm-users mailing list > xml...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users |
|
From: Inderjeet S. <ind...@gm...> - 2009-10-26 17:21:37
|
How does it work for other GPL compilers such as those from GNU? Their output is not required to be under GPL. I do understand that once anyone links to the compatibility library, they are forced to put the linked files under GPL. Thanks Inder On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Arno Puder <ar...@pu...> wrote: > > It is my understanding of the GPL, that derivative work (i.e., your > application that is linked to a GPLed library) also needs to be GPLed. > Of course you can also dual license with a GPL-compatible license. > > Arno > > |
|
From: Inderjeet S. <ind...@gm...> - 2009-10-26 17:16:35
|
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Markus Heberling <ma...@ti...> wrote: > I would understand it in this way: > > The resulting Obj/C source (the *.m and *.h files) is always under GPL. The > original java code can remain under any license you want, as long as you > don't link to xmlvm files in there (import org.xmlvm.iphone.*). > This seems strange. GPL project typically dont force the output to be under GPL. Can you even enforce it via your license? What prevents anyone from forking XMLVM as another GPL project, but generate output to be non-GPL? It seems to me that only thing that is part of the output binary file and can be forced to be under GPL is the compatibility library. Thanks Inder |
|
From: Arno P. <ar...@pu...> - 2009-10-26 17:06:25
|
Kevin Glass wrote: > I get that the generated source is under GPL, but the original Java > seems a bit odd. I mean wouldn't anyone that didn't want to comply > simply hack up a bunch of classes with no implementation that match the > prototypes of the XMLVM java compatbility lib - thereby not linking > their Java to the GPL Java stuff? Consider you use g++ to compile a C++ program to assembler. That assembler is linked against a library. If you link it with a GPLed library, not only the assembler but also the original C++ source must be GPLed. Otherwise there wouldn't be a difference between GPL and LGPL. In this way, we treat Objective-C as assembly code that is generated by XMLVM. Arno |
|
From: Arno P. <ar...@pu...> - 2009-10-26 17:03:07
|
Markus Heberling wrote: > I would understand it in this way: > > The resulting Obj/C source (the *.m and *.h files) is always under GPL. > The original java code can remain under any license you want, as long as > you don't link to xmlvm files in there (import org.xmlvm.iphone.*). > > So converting an Android app, that does not use any xmlvm code in the > java source, will not have to be under GPL. Only the resulting *.m and > *.h files will. however, the resulting .m and .h code won't do you any good unless you link it to XMLVM's libraries. If, for example, your Android app uses class 'Activity', you will need the XMLVM compatibility library of this class. > But writing directly to the xmlvm compatibility API (import > org.xmlvm.iphone.*) will force you to make your java code GPL, too. yes, you would need to release your Java code under the GPL. > And maybe you should define what a major revision update is. Is 1.0->1.1 > major or 1.0->2.0? Major revision: significant new functionality. We haven't decided on a versioning scheme yet, but it will probably be 1.0 -> 2.0. Arno |
|
From: Kevin G. <ke...@co...> - 2009-10-26 17:02:08
|
I get that the generated source is under GPL, but the original Java seems a bit odd. I mean wouldn't anyone that didn't want to comply simply hack up a bunch of classes with no implementation that match the prototypes of the XMLVM java compatbility lib - thereby not linking their Java to the GPL Java stuff? Obviously the obj-c output will still be linked to the XMLVM implementation, and so has to be GPL. However, as I've said before I don't so why anyone would be particular worried about letting the generated obj-c stuff out into the wild - I don't worry about letting class files out to be decomplied :) We might want to relicense XMLVM to use as part of another product later, would you be open to discussions around that? (either in the open or offline) Kev 2009/10/26 Arno Puder <ar...@pu...> > > It is my understanding of the GPL, that derivative work (i.e., your > application that is linked to a GPLed library) also needs to be GPLed. > Of course you can also dual license with a GPL-compatible license. > > Arno > > > Panayotis Katsaloulis wrote: > > On 26 Οκτ 2009, at 6:14 ΜΜ, Arno Puder wrote: > > > >> > >> ... If you use XMLVM to translate > >> your application, the resulting source code will also be under the GPL > >> license. ... > > > > > > > > I think there is a misconception here :) > > > > The source code of my application should *not* be under the GPL > > license. It could be under the license I want it to be. What actually > > xmlvm does is only to transform my code from one "style" to the other > > (i.e. from *.class to *.xml or *.m or whatever) > > All rights and license and all that in any case remain to the original > > author. > > > > I think what you probably mean is that, the source code of my > > application *should* be under a GPL-compatible license (not > > necessarily under GPL itself) if I want to *link* it with the Obj-C > > compatibility library (which is also under GPL). > > If it's not, it's a GPL violation! > > > > > > The rest of the text is something I think I understand. > > If I got it right, if someone want to use this library to create an > > iPhone application (for example), then he has to do one of the options > > provided in the previous email. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA > > is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your > > developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay > > ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference > > _______________________________________________ > > xmlvm-users mailing list > > xml...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA > is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your > developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay > ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference > _______________________________________________ > xmlvm-users mailing list > xml...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users > |
|
From: Arno P. <ar...@pu...> - 2009-10-26 16:56:45
|
It is my understanding of the GPL, that derivative work (i.e., your application that is linked to a GPLed library) also needs to be GPLed. Of course you can also dual license with a GPL-compatible license. Arno Panayotis Katsaloulis wrote: > On 26 Οκτ 2009, at 6:14 ΜΜ, Arno Puder wrote: > >> >> ... If you use XMLVM to translate >> your application, the resulting source code will also be under the GPL >> license. ... > > > > I think there is a misconception here :) > > The source code of my application should *not* be under the GPL > license. It could be under the license I want it to be. What actually > xmlvm does is only to transform my code from one "style" to the other > (i.e. from *.class to *.xml or *.m or whatever) > All rights and license and all that in any case remain to the original > author. > > I think what you probably mean is that, the source code of my > application *should* be under a GPL-compatible license (not > necessarily under GPL itself) if I want to *link* it with the Obj-C > compatibility library (which is also under GPL). > If it's not, it's a GPL violation! > > > The rest of the text is something I think I understand. > If I got it right, if someone want to use this library to create an > iPhone application (for example), then he has to do one of the options > provided in the previous email. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA > is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your > developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay > ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference > _______________________________________________ > xmlvm-users mailing list > xml...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users |
|
From: Markus H. <ma...@ti...> - 2009-10-26 16:54:35
|
I would understand it in this way: The resulting Obj/C source (the *.m and *.h files) is always under GPL. The original java code can remain under any license you want, as long as you don't link to xmlvm files in there (import org.xmlvm.iphone.*). So converting an Android app, that does not use any xmlvm code in the java source, will not have to be under GPL. Only the resulting *.m and *.h files will. But writing directly to the xmlvm compatibility API (import org.xmlvm.iphone.*) will force you to make your java code GPL, too. Is this understanding correct? If not could you explain why not? :) And maybe you should define what a major revision update is. Is 1.0- >1.1 major or 1.0->2.0? Markus Am 26.10.2009 um 17:14 schrieb Arno Puder: > > Guys, > > a while ago we had a longer discussion regarding commercial usage of > XMLVM. We (the XMLVM core team) explained our dual licensing strategy, > but we have not yet explained what constitutes a contribution for > which > we will grant the non-transferrable linking exception. > > We had an internal discussion to clarify this point and we would > like to > solicit feedback from you. > > Arno > > --- > > XMLVM is released under the GPL license. If you use XMLVM to translate > your application, the resulting source code will also be under the GPL > license. If you would like to use XMLVM for a commercial product and > do > not want to release the source code of your application (as required > by > the GPL), we offer you a non-transferrable linking exception in return > for a contribution to the XMLVM project. The linking exception will > enable you to publish a commercial application build with XMLVM > without > having to release your own source code. > > There are different ways to make a contribution to the XMLVM project > for > which we will grant you the non-transferrable linking exception. One > option is to submit a substantial patch to increase the quality of > XMLVM. Please ask us if you want to clarify whether your proposed > patch > qualifies as substantial. > > Another option to make a contribution to XMLVM is by making a > donation. > We will grant the non-transferrable linking exception of the current > version of XMLVM for US $300 per developer. The $300 donation will > give > the developer the right to use the current version of XMLVM without > having to release the source code of his/her applications. This > donation > covers minor revisions (bug fixes). Major revision updates of XMLVM > can > be obtained by an additional US $100 per developer. > > If XMLVM is lacking certain features that you need for your > application, > we also offer to implement those missing features on a contracting > basis. Please contact us for details. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA > is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart > your > developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and > stay > ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference > _______________________________________________ > xmlvm-users mailing list > xml...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users |
|
From: Panayotis K. <pan...@pa...> - 2009-10-26 16:34:15
|
On 26 Οκτ 2009, at 6:14 ΜΜ, Arno Puder wrote: > > > ... If you use XMLVM to translate > your application, the resulting source code will also be under the GPL > license. ... I think there is a misconception here :) The source code of my application should *not* be under the GPL license. It could be under the license I want it to be. What actually xmlvm does is only to transform my code from one "style" to the other (i.e. from *.class to *.xml or *.m or whatever) All rights and license and all that in any case remain to the original author. I think what you probably mean is that, the source code of my application *should* be under a GPL-compatible license (not necessarily under GPL itself) if I want to *link* it with the Obj-C compatibility library (which is also under GPL). If it's not, it's a GPL violation! The rest of the text is something I think I understand. If I got it right, if someone want to use this library to create an iPhone application (for example), then he has to do one of the options provided in the previous email. |
|
From: Arno P. <ar...@pu...> - 2009-10-26 16:14:45
|
Guys, a while ago we had a longer discussion regarding commercial usage of XMLVM. We (the XMLVM core team) explained our dual licensing strategy, but we have not yet explained what constitutes a contribution for which we will grant the non-transferrable linking exception. We had an internal discussion to clarify this point and we would like to solicit feedback from you. Arno --- XMLVM is released under the GPL license. If you use XMLVM to translate your application, the resulting source code will also be under the GPL license. If you would like to use XMLVM for a commercial product and do not want to release the source code of your application (as required by the GPL), we offer you a non-transferrable linking exception in return for a contribution to the XMLVM project. The linking exception will enable you to publish a commercial application build with XMLVM without having to release your own source code. There are different ways to make a contribution to the XMLVM project for which we will grant you the non-transferrable linking exception. One option is to submit a substantial patch to increase the quality of XMLVM. Please ask us if you want to clarify whether your proposed patch qualifies as substantial. Another option to make a contribution to XMLVM is by making a donation. We will grant the non-transferrable linking exception of the current version of XMLVM for US $300 per developer. The $300 donation will give the developer the right to use the current version of XMLVM without having to release the source code of his/her applications. This donation covers minor revisions (bug fixes). Major revision updates of XMLVM can be obtained by an additional US $100 per developer. If XMLVM is lacking certain features that you need for your application, we also offer to implement those missing features on a contracting basis. Please contact us for details. |
|
From: Markus H. <ma...@ti...> - 2009-10-19 10:25:33
|
Hi, Maybe this could be a starting point: http://code.google.com/p/jnaerator/ It parses c and ObjC headers and generates wrappers for java. I wanted to try it with xmlvm, but haven't found the time yet. Markus Am Montag, den 19.10.2009, 11:19 +0200 schrieb Arno Puder: > > Panayotis Katsaloulis wrote: > > Now, about parsing the ObjC binary - I don't think this is the > > direction to go on. I find it safer to parse .h files from the SDK, > > since this is the actual "showcase" of the application. > > well, I would argue that it is generally easier to parse binaries > (especially when you have a powerful reflection mechanism) than source > code (that is also the reason why we read byte codes and not Java source > code in XMLVM). Think about the nasty things you can do even in ObjC .h > files: from pre-processing directives to constant expressions. All that > goes away if you parse the binary versions of the libraries. > > A small prototype might be an interesting first step to evaluate the > complexity of the various approaches. > > Arno > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA > is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your > developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay > ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference > _______________________________________________ > xmlvm-users mailing list > xml...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users |
|
From: Arno P. <ar...@pu...> - 2009-10-19 09:43:07
|
Panayotis Katsaloulis wrote: > Now, about parsing the ObjC binary - I don't think this is the > direction to go on. I find it safer to parse .h files from the SDK, > since this is the actual "showcase" of the application. well, I would argue that it is generally easier to parse binaries (especially when you have a powerful reflection mechanism) than source code (that is also the reason why we read byte codes and not Java source code in XMLVM). Think about the nasty things you can do even in ObjC .h files: from pre-processing directives to constant expressions. All that goes away if you parse the binary versions of the libraries. A small prototype might be an interesting first step to evaluate the complexity of the various approaches. Arno |
|
From: Panayotis K. <pan...@pa...> - 2009-10-19 07:59:49
|
On 19 Οκτ 2009, at 8:25 π.μ., Arno Puder wrote: > > OK. I'm finally back online again… Welcome back :) > If I understand you correctly, you want to generate the ObjC file > from the Java wrappers? Yes, that was the idea. "Was", because now I am trying to improve the emulator. The current xmlvm Cocoa Touch support is extremely limited. Actually is supporting *only* what the Xokoban and iRemote applications need. ;-) Since I'd preferred a more complete environment, I'm heading towards this direction first. > I think the problem is more complicated and deserves more thinking. … I agree with your thoughts. My consideration was to at least have a nice wrapper where we can start from. It probably be able to understand empty selector implementations and implementations already be done, and don't change the latter. Doing everything completely automatic is interesting but it's not trivial (although we're here to discuss it). What I did at the end, as a temporal solution, is to make xmlvm create for me the ObjC wrapper of the library, as if it was code I'd like to use it (like android library). Then I manually edited the file and quickly added the implementation. To make sure that, in existing implementations I wouldn't overwrite anything useful, I created a batch script that compares the two .h files and displays only the differences. That is of course far away from the optimal, but at least it improved my speed with tools already existing. Now, about parsing the ObjC binary - I don't think this is the direction to go on. I find it safer to parse .h files from the SDK, since this is the actual "showcase" of the application. |
|
From: Arno P. <ar...@pu...> - 2009-10-19 05:49:27
|
OK. I'm finally back online again... 2009/10/14 Panayotis Katsaloulis <pan...@pa...> > ( Right now I am writing a tool to automatically create skeleton files > from java files to objective-c files, so that creating the native part > from the java library to be as easy as possible) > This interests me. Right now it takes a lot of effort to write both the Java and Objective-C wrapper. I have been musing for some time about a way to automate this process as much as possible. If I understand you correctly, you want to generate the ObjC file from the Java wrappers? I think the problem is more complicated and deserves more thinking. ObjC has great reflection mechanisms. It is possible to "traverse" the Cocoa (binary) libraries and extract all required signature information (I believe that is how the free gcc toolchain guys generate the .h files that an application needs to #import). Ideally, I would like to do the same to create both the XMLVM-specific ObjC wrappers as well as skeletons for Java. The libraries that come with the iPhone SDK would serve as input to our XMLVM-wrapper-skeleton generator. There are several issues that come immediately to mind: - the Java skeletons would be manually edited with implementation for our Java emulator (of course, only if one wanted to continue the XMLVM-specific iPhone emulator written in Java). Here we have the typical problem of code generation tools where the output needs to be manually edited: update cycles become tricky (if you re-generate the Java code you might overwrite the hand-written part from the previous iteration). - things get even trickier when you consider the ObjC wrapper. While for most parts these wrappers are fairly "symmetric", there are numerous exceptions: for memory management, value types (structs), C-functions, pointer-to-pointer to mimic call-by-reference, just to name a few that come immediately to mind. I don't think such a wrapper-generator can do its work completely autonomous. What might be required is some kind of "meta-mapping file" that gives hints to this wrapper-generator (i.e., how to map ObjC signatures to Java). I would love to move in that direction. It would remove the error prone process of hand-coding all wrappers and skeletons and we have a realistic chance not to loose the battle with new SDK versions. But I don't believe that a "drive-by-coding" solution will be sufficient. Anyone interested to discuss this problem? In particular those who know ObjC well? Arno |
|
From: Markus H. <ma...@ti...> - 2009-10-17 12:35:05
|
Hi, I added string quote and backslash escaping to the objc xslt file: http://github.com/tisoft/xmlvm/commit/ce1e5b0880cdbabb54506bd9426570260e852ebf Works fine for me, but maybe one of you would like to give it a little test. :) Markus |
18 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
