gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
Hi, I've started using gEDA, and I love it, but I hate firing up my Ubuntu VM every 5 minutes to tweak stuff. So I compiled gEDA under Cygwin (after much dependency hell). Afterwards I thought: What if I could make this a portable package? So, with absolutely no warranty or support (other than perhaps if you bug me enough) I'd like to announce my portable-gaf package for Win32. Based off the latest gEDA/gaf, pcb and gerbv packages from the website, it's compiled for 32-bit, but will probably work on 64-bit as well (maybe). Downloads from http://portablegaf.cmalton.me.uk Unzip it wherever you want, and run the launcher (needs .NET framework - eurgh, but most Windows people should have it by now). If you need to move it around, that's fine, and it doesn't care about spaces in path names either. Hope this is wanted/needed by people. Constructive comments and feedback appreciated. Yours, Chris Malton ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
Hi, I've started using gEDA, and I love it, but I hate firing up my Ubuntu VM every 5 minutes to tweak stuff. So I compiled gEDA under Cygwin (after much dependency hell). Afterwards I thought: What if I could make this a portable package? So, with absolutely no warranty or support (other than perhaps if you bug me enough) I'd like to announce my portable-gaf package for Win32. Based off the latest gEDA/gaf, pcb and gerbv packages from the website, it's compiled for 32-bit, but will probably work on 64-bit as well (maybe). Downloads from http://portablegaf.cmalton.me.uk Unzip it wherever you want, and run the launcher (needs .NET framework - eurgh, but most Windows people should have it by now). If you need to move it around, that's fine, and it doesn't care about spaces in path names either. Hope this is wanted/needed by people. Constructive comments and feedback appreciated. Yours, Chris Malton ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
On 09/19/2010 11:34 AM, Chris Malton wrote: Unzip it wherever you want, and run the launcher (needs .NET framework - eurgh, but most Windows people should have it by now). I was thinking of installing it on a windows computer, but it has Win2K. My wife has no desire to upgrade windows. Likewise with many windows users who are not computer enthusiasts -- they want to logon, get something done and get off, so they may not have the latest version. Is the .NET framework something you can add to old versions of windows? John ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
Are you joking? On 19 Sep 2010 09:58, John Griessen [1]j...@ecosensory.com wrote: On 09/19/2010 11:34 AM, Chris Malton wrote: Unzip it wherever you want, and run the launcher (needs .NET framework - eurgh, but most Windows people should have it by now). I was thinking of installing it on a windows computer, but it has Win2K. My wife has no desire to upgrade windows. Likewise with many windows users who are not computer enthusiasts -- they want to logon, get something done and get off, so they may not have the latest version. Is the .NET framework something you can add to old versions of windows? John ___ geda-user mailing list [2]geda-u...@moria.seul.org [3]http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user References 1. mailto:j...@ecosensory.com 2. mailto:geda-user@moria.seul.org 3. http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
On 09/19/2010 11:56 AM, John Griessen wrote: Is the .NET framework something you can add to old versions of windows? I found this on a forum archive. Not certain it's correct, but... The Microsoft .Net Framework version 3.5 does not contain support for Windows 2000. It appears that Microsoft is dropping support for that operating system as they release their new technologies. I already knew that version 3.0 did not include Windows 2000. I had hoped it would be included in 3.5. They are supporting XP, Vista, and Windows 2003. So, by using .NET you put users of your compilation in an upgrade treadmill to the benefit of Microsoft. John ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
Yes, and you are still running lunix from 1999, right? I'm sorry but anyone complaining about .net in 2010 is just asking to be ridiculed. On 19 Sep 2010 10:04, John Griessen [1]j...@ecosensory.com wrote: On 09/19/2010 11:56 AM, John Griessen wrote: Is the .NET framework something you can add to old versions of windows? I found this on a forum archive. Not certain it's correct, but... The Microsoft .Net Framework version 3.5 does not contain support for Windows 2000. It appears that Microsoft is dropping support for that operating system as they release their new technologies. I already knew that version 3.0 did not include Windows 2000. I had hoped it would be included in 3.5. They are supporting XP, Vista, and Windows 2003. So, by using .NET you put users of your compilation in an upgrade treadmill to the benefit of Microsoft. John ___ geda-user mailing list [2]geda-u...@moria.seul.org [3]http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user References 1. mailto:j...@ecosensory.com 2. mailto:geda-user@moria.seul.org 3. http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
Hi John, It needs .Net 2.0. From the MS website: Supported Operating Systems:Windows 2000 Service Pack 3;Windows 98;Windows 98 Second Edition;Windows ME;Windows Server 2003;Windows XP Service Pack 2 Looks like you're OK there. Chris On 19/09/2010 18:04, John Griessen wrote: On 09/19/2010 11:56 AM, John Griessen wrote: Is the .NET framework something you can add to old versions of windows? I found this on a forum archive. Not certain it's correct, but... The Microsoft .Net Framework version 3.5 does not contain support for Windows 2000. It appears that Microsoft is dropping support for that operating system as they release their new technologies. I already knew that version 3.0 did not include Windows 2000. I had hoped it would be included in 3.5. They are supporting XP, Vista, and Windows 2003. So, by using .NET you put users of your compilation in an upgrade treadmill to the benefit of Microsoft. John ___ geda-user mailing list [1]geda-u...@moria.seul.org [2]http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user References 1. mailto:geda-user@moria.seul.org 2. http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
On 9/19/10 1:06 PM, timecop wrote: Yes, and you are still running lunix from 1999, right? I'm sorry but anyone complaining about .net in 2010 is just asking to be ridiculed. Anyone USING .net in 2010 is asking to be ridiculed. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
On 09/19/2010 12:12 PM, Dave McGuire wrote: Anyone USING .net in 2010 is asking to be ridiculed. Are there other ways than .NET to help out a build on windows? (I don't see messages from timecop, since he's in my kill file) What's the status of Carlos Nieve's build method? John ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
The only other way I can think of (that doesn't introduce dependencies) involves a collection of Batch files, none of which are particularly nice Given that .NET gets installed as a Windows Update. I figured it was probably safe. Especially given since the app only requires version 2.0, which is supported on 98SE. The problem is dealing with the portable root that way. Couldn't find an obvious way to get the directory of the *current* file. Not the working directory, the directory of the current file. Windows has the joys of shortcuts having a tendancy to start in C:\Windows. or somewhere other than the Start In: field. Anyway, I'd say this enough of the Why .NET? argument. What've I broken in building it this way? Do let me know. Cheers, Chris On 19/09/2010 18:44, John Griessen wrote: On 09/19/2010 12:12 PM, Dave McGuire wrote: Anyone USING .net in 2010 is asking to be ridiculed. Are there other ways than .NET to help out a build on windows? (I don't see messages from timecop, since he's in my kill file) What's the status of Carlos Nieve's build method? John ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
On Sep 19, 2010, at 10:04 AM, John Griessen wrote: So, by using .NET you put users of your compilation in an upgrade treadmill to the benefit of Microsoft. Nonsense. This version gives the ability to run gEDA to users of certain Windows versions who couldn't use it before. And when their computers get old, hopefully they'll install linux on them (and keep running gEDA)-- actually upgrade them rather than replace them. Does it work for absolutely everyone? No, but that wasn't in the scope of the project. (And, if your computer is old enough that M$ doesn't support you, Linux and gEDA are still here for you.) On Sep 19, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Chris Malton wrote: What've I broken in building it this way? Do let me know. Nothing. Disregard the haters. You've made a genuine and useful contribution to the gEDA ecosystem-- Nice work, and thank you! - Windell ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
The only other way I can think of (that doesn't introduce dependencies) involves a collection of Batch files, none of which are particularly nice Cesar Struass put together a build system for building the binaries for Win32, which works really well. It is fairly easy to cross compile the packages. Peter Clifton also made his installer script available for building a self-installing package, but I'd have to search the archives in more detail for that. You can get minipack from http://repo.or.cz/w/minipack.git ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
Here is the message with the installer script, http://archives.seul.org/geda/user/Jan-2010/msg00168.html ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
On 19/9/2010 13:34, Chris Malton wrote: Downloads from http://portablegaf.cmalton.me.uk Please be sure you comply with clause 3 of GPL v2, which ensures anyone can get the exact sources for the software you distribute. In your case, this includes the GPL'd parts of gEDA and Cygwin you include in your installer. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html Cesar ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
Are you trying to tell me that I need to upload the unmodified sources for gEDA, pcb, Cygwin and co? Did you read the license terms for all those packages before distributing binaries built from them? For gEDA and PCB, that's exactly what you have to do. For Cygwin, IIRC there's an exception for open source apps whose source is generally downloadable over the web. For any other libraries you linked into the binaries, it depends on their terms. GPL says yes, if they're GPL. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
On Sep 19, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Chris Malton wrote: Are you trying to tell me that I need to upload the unmodified sources for gEDA, pcb, Cygwin and co? Not quite; be sure that *anyone can get* the exact sources -- be sure to identify and link to the sources that you used, and upload any scripts and source contributions of your own. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
Not quite; be sure that *anyone can get* the exact sources -- be sure to identify and link to the sources that you used, GPL version 2 does not permit that. a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, It is the *distributor's* responsibility to make those sources available. You're not allowed to rely on some third party web site to do it for you, unless you have an agreement in place for that purpose. Otherwise, the third party might update their sources and the ones that match your binaries will no longer be available. Also, the intent is that the sources must be *as available* as the binaries. Downloading a zip to Windows is a *lot* easier than installing GIT and copying a release tag, so zip up the sources too. Don't assume that able to run unzip implies able to run git for example. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
On Sep 19, 2010, at 12:11 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: Are you trying to tell me that I need to upload the unmodified sources for gEDA, pcb, Cygwin and co? Did you read the license terms for all those packages before distributing binaries built from them? For gEDA and PCB, that's exactly what you have to do. I suppose technically this is correct. However, you *can* also simply link to your sources, provided that you also accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code [...]. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
And this, friends, is why people just say fuckit and stop contributing. Enjoy your GPL circlejerk. On 19 Sep 2010 12:18, DJ Delorie [1...@delorie.com wrote: Not quite; be sure that *anyone can get* the exact sources -- be sure to identify and link to the sources that you used, GPL version 2 does not permit that. a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, It is the *distributor's* responsibility to make those sources available. You're not allowed to rely on some third party web site to do it for you, unless you have an agreement in place for that purpose. Otherwise, the third party might update their sources and the ones that match your binaries will no longer be available. Also, the intent is that the sources must be *as available* as the binaries. Downloading a zip to Windows is a *lot* easier than installing GIT and copying a release tag, so zip up the sources too. Don't assume that able to run unzip implies able to run git for example. ___ geda-user mailing list [2]geda-u...@moria.seul.org [3]http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user References 1. mailto:d...@delorie.com 2. mailto:geda-user@moria.seul.org 3. http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
However, you *can* also simply link to your sources, provided that you also accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code [...]. Hard to include a *written* offer over the web. Written here implies legally binding. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
And this, friends, is why people just say fuckit and stop contributing. Enjoy your GPL circlejerk. Your troll-fu is weak. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
On Sep 19, 2010, at 12:25 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: However, you *can* also simply link to your sources, provided that you also accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code [...]. Hard to include a *written* offer over the web. Written here implies legally binding. [citation needed] So... a copy of the GPL on the web is not legally binding?Your troll-fu is weak. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
So... a copy of the GPL on the web is not legally binding? The GNU General Public License is a one-sided grant of rights, not a contract, it is *NOT* legally binding and need not be. However, if you *choose* to not accept its terms, the US Copyright Laws take full effect, and your right to distribute is revoked completely. Thus, the binding is entirely on the recipient's side. The written offer in 3B needs to be binding on the *distributor's* side. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
On 09/19/2010 01:33 PM, Windell H. Oskay wrote: Nothing. Disregard the haters. You've made a genuine and useful contribution to the gEDA ecosystem-- Nice work, and thank you! Haters? I was just asking about how universal or not .NET was, and got an answer that 2.0 .NET does not create lock in. If you could'nt talk about lock in vs. open software licenses on the gEDA list I don't know what you could talk about. John Griessen ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
On Sep 19, 2010, at 12:44 PM, John Griessen wrote: On 09/19/2010 01:33 PM, Windell H. Oskay wrote: Nothing. Disregard the haters. You've made a genuine and useful contribution to the gEDA ecosystem-- Nice work, and thank you! Haters? I was just asking about how universal or not .NET was, and got an answer that 2.0 .NET does not create lock in. If you could'nt talk about lock in vs. open software licenses on the gEDA list I don't know what you could talk about. Very sorry-- I apologize; I did not mean to be labeling you as a hater -- I should have said naysayers or something else less negative. You're absolutely right that we should be able to discuss this kind of thing here. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
Your troll-fu is weak. Not trolling at all. I've been discussing the GNU GPL officially, publically, and otherwise for the last 20 years or so - as part of DJGPP and Cygwin, as a Cygnus/Red Hat employee, and now as part of gEDA/PCB. Some of the wording in COPYINGv2 exists because of my discussions with Stallman about how COPYINGv1 interacted badly with DJGPP (a GNU distribution), and I've had many talks with him and the FSF about the intricacies of the GPL and how it's interpreted. The GPL is easy to comply with, but it's not always obvious how that's done. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
On 09/19/2010 02:42 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: So... a copy of the GPL on the web is not legally binding? The GNU General Public License is a one-sided grant of rights, not a contract, it is *NOT* legally binding and need not be. However, if you *choose* to not accept its terms, the US Copyright Laws take full effect, and your right to distribute is revoked completely. Thus, the binding is entirely on the recipient's side. The written offer in 3B needs to be binding on the *distributor's* side. Thanks DJ, a fine point I hadn't understood so far. JG ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
On Sep 19, 2010, at 12:42 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: So... a copy of the GPL on the web is not legally binding? The GNU General Public License is a one-sided grant of rights, not a contract, it is *NOT* legally binding and need not be. However, if you *choose* to not accept its terms, the US Copyright Laws take full effect, and your right to distribute is revoked completely. Thus, the binding is entirely on the recipient's side. The written offer in 3B needs to be binding on the *distributor's* side. Can you actually cite any example from GNU or elsewhere, saying that a written offer to include source code is not sufficient if it's online? ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
On 09/19/2010 02:47 PM, Windell H. Oskay wrote: I should have said naysayers or something else less negative. You're absolutely right that we should be able to discuss this kind of thing here. Thanks, Yes, I can't imagine figuring out all the paths we can go on in publishing free hardware designs (and software) without some of the discussion on this list. John Griessen ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
Can you actually cite any example from GNU or elsewhere, saying that a written offer to include source code is not sufficient if it's online? The internet is not the only thing in the world. Try asking a lawyer for advice instead. I can only give you my opinion based on years of experience and personal discussions with the FSF. If you can figure out a secure legally binding DATED way to make that offer online, and not get screwed by someone who edited the file to change the date ten years down the line, and have it all hold up in court, go for it. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
The GPL is easy to comply with, but it's not always obvious how that's done. Just so I'm clear myself here, if I cross compile using Cygwin or MinW32 as far as GPL2 section 3 is concerned: However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. is concerned I do not have to archive Cygwin/MinW32 for three years? I would have to archive the source for the cygwin.dll if that ended up in the distributable binary? ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
The key problem with Cygwin isn't cygwin1.dll, actually. A small bit of the Cygwin library gets linked statically into every Cygwin application, and that code is GPL. At least, it was last time I checked. However, Cygwin has an exception for distributing binaries of open-source programs anyway: http://cygwin.com/licensing.html DJGPP's runtime has some exceptions for DJGPP-built apps to avoid that issue too. Note that the major components (compiler text is in there because of DJGPP :-) I would have to archive the source for the cygwin.dll if that ended up in the distributable binary? Yes. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
On 19/9/2010 16:08, Chris Malton wrote: Are you trying to tell me that I need to upload the unmodified sources for gEDA, pcb, Cygwin and co? It is the safest way, yes. Consider if any of the home sites went offline, or changed the source page URL. Then you would no longer have permission to distribute your installer, since the recipient would have no direct way to know how to get the sources. Also, Cygwin deletes the sources of old versions from time to time. Regards, Cesar ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
On 19/09/2010 21:21, Cesar Strauss wrote: On 19/9/2010 16:08, Chris Malton wrote: Are you trying to tell me that I need to upload the unmodified sources for gEDA, pcb, Cygwin and co? It is the safest way, yes. Consider if any of the home sites went offline, or changed the source page URL. Then you would no longer have permission to distribute your installer, since the recipient would have no direct way to know how to get the sources. Also, Cygwin deletes the sources of old versions from time to time. The next question, I suppose is, what if I didn't compile Cygwin, or the other libraries it's link against?, but that belongs somewhere else. Chris ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
The next question, I suppose is, what if I didn't compile Cygwin, or the other libraries it's link against?, but that belongs somewhere else. Actually, it's a good question here too, because it relates. If you offer binaries on a web site along with sources, and the recipient *chooses* not to download the sources at the same time they download the binaries, that's the users problem if they go away. But if that user uses those binaries to make something, they might not be able to distribute that thing if they can't then obtain the right sources in order to pass them along. Shared libraries mitigates some of this, as libraries like GTK or .NET are normally distributed with the operating system and not included in your own distribution. It becomes problematic when you want to use such a library on an OS that *doesn't* normally include those, like gtk on windows. You can mitigate that by linking against pre-built DLLs that, say, come with cygwin, and telling the end user they need to install them to use your program. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
On Sep 19, 2010, at 12:49 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: Your troll-fu is weak. Not trolling at all. I've been discussing the GNU GPL officially, publically, and otherwise for the last 20 years or so - as part of DJGPP and Cygwin, as a Cygnus/Red Hat employee, and now as part of gEDA/PCB. Some of the wording in COPYINGv2 exists because of my discussions with Stallman about how COPYINGv1 interacted badly with DJGPP (a GNU distribution), and I've had many talks with him and the FSF about the intricacies of the GPL and how it's interpreted. Okay. You can name-drop Stallman. Your troll-fu is pretty strong actually. I stand corrected. But citation still needed, or it *is* trolling. You are expressing a possibly inflammatory opinion without evidence to back it up. Doesn't that fit the definition? (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet) ) On Sep 19, 2010, at 12:56 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: The internet is not the only thing in the world. Try asking a lawyer for advice instead. I can only give you my opinion based on years of experience and personal discussions with the FSF. You are expressing great confidence in an opinion that is-- as far as I can see --contrary to the way that this section is normally explained. Do you really want to justify this both by saying that (1) I should submit to your authority since you discuss things like this with Stallman and (2) it's just the internet, go ask a lawyer? It sounds like you're actually unsure of your position too. The GPL Violations FAQ for vendors ( http://gpl-violations.org/faq/vendor-faq.html ) lists common mistakes in distributions, including Only including a download link to the source code, rather than a written offer to ship the source code on a physical storage medium customarily used for information interchange. I would think that if only including a written offer online were a problem, that would be listed here, as at least as large of a common mistake as not making the offer. At gnu.org, on the page about checking for license violations ( http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html ) lists among things to check for in a potential license violation, Is a written offer for source code included with a distribution of just binaries? No indication is made to distinguish between a downloaded offer/distribution and one obtained on physical media. When the FSF checks for violations ( http://www.fsf.org/licensing/compliance ), they check the pages where software is distributed, and they also check the surrounding web pages (to make sure that the source isn't distributed elsewhere on the site, and there's no written offer). Why would they say this if a written offer online were insufficient? If you can figure out a secure legally binding DATED way to make that offer online, and not get screwed by someone who edited the file to change the date ten years down the line, and have it all hold up in court, go for it. If it comes down to someone suing you in court, then hopefully you can find several witnesses who can each attest that they used this version of the software back in 2010. There's more to do in court than parse text files. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
When the FSF checks for violations ( http://www.fsf.org/licensing/compliance ), they check the pages where software is distributed, and they also check the surrounding web pages (to make sure that the source isn't distributed elsewhere on the site, and there's no written offer). Why would they say this if a written offer online were insufficient? If you go the written offer route there are several ways that can make you go broke. A million people make the request. Same person makes the request every day etc. Anderson on the Uniform Commercial Code is a 34 volume set, always a fun read... ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
On Sep 19, 2010, at 1:49 PM, Bob Paddock wrote: If you go the written offer route there are several ways that can make you go broke. A million people make the request. Same person makes the request every day etc. Interesting thought. I'd guess that this is why the license allows you to charge for source code mailings and cover your costs. Anderson on the Uniform Commercial Code is a 34 volume set, always a fun read... I'm afraid that I haven't had the pleasure. ;) ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
But citation still needed, or it *is* trolling. No citation is needed - the GPL is a legal document. Bring it to a lawyer if you want a legal opinion. You should never rely on the Internet for legal advice. All we can give you are opinions. Even a *lawyer* on the Internet can only give opinions - they need to know the specifics of your case to give legal advice. You are expressing a possibly inflammatory opinion without evidence to back it up. Trolling is when you post something innocent and minor, in hopes that someone *else* will follow up with an inflamatory comment, and start an argument. It sounds like you're actually unsure of your position too. I can give you my opinion and my justification on why I think I'm right, but it's not legal advice - it's my opinion. As soon as you start yelling for proof, I'm stepping away from it. I'm not a lawyer. You want proof, you need a lawyer. The GPL Violations FAQ I don't know of *any* case where 3b was used, ever. Well, OK, one - I got a box with a paper letter in it saying write to us to get sources, but that was many years ago. That disqualified it from the Frequently status in my book. No indication is made to distinguish between a downloaded offer/distribution and one obtained on physical media. That doesn't mean their definition of written matches yours. Why would they say this if a written offer online were insufficient? Note that the FSF is talking about GPLv3 these days but gEDA/PCB uses GPLv2. The wording is different. GPLv3 specifically restricts the written offer to accompany physical distribution media. Binaries distributed over the network do not have that option. From that, one implies their original intent. Perhaps they're checking to see if the web site says you should have received... If it comes down to someone suing you in court, then hopefully you can find several witnesses who can each attest that they used this version of the software back in 2010. You have to find witnesses who can attest that the software was NOT made available on the date in question. Very hard to prove a negative. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
Interesting thought. I'd guess that this is why the license allows you to charge for source code mailings and cover your costs. Even so, it's a denial of service attack if they can't hire enough employees to service the requests. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
DJ Delorie wrote: If you can figure out a secure legally binding DATED way to make that offer online, and not get screwed by someone who edited the file to change the date ten years down the line, and have it all hold up in court, go for it appart from the problems of millions of people taking the offer, would a file with an officialy registered signature (by Digital Signature Act) be appropriate? How does FSF themselves handle this? And why include a clause in a license, that no one can legally fulfil maybe? ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 04:20:54 +0900 timecop time...@gmail.com wrote: And this, friends, is why people just say fuckit and stop contributing. Enjoy your GPL circlejerk. THIS is why so many of us on the open source side of the fence get so upset at folks on the closed source side. People stop contributing and just say fuck it when the manager of project, whatever its purpose, whether open or closed source, stops accepting bug reports, patches, comments, etc. and starts doing whatever he or she wants to with that software. That certainly doesn't seem to be the case with the gEDA project, or this list wouldn't exist, by definition. Each person has their own reasons why will not contribute to a project, whatever that project's purpose, and each author has their own reasons why they choose one license over another. If you don't like a project or its license, that is your right, but do not presume to speak for *anyone* else but yourself. As long as you're going to take pot shots at how we choose to manage our licensing and contributing mechanisms, I must point this out: In the closed source world, software companies and even many of the smaller authors generally have at least one or two of these things to deal with: * Software patents. Ignoring for the moment that these should not exist at all, some commercial software companies have tens of thousands of patents. * Negotiated and signed license agreements spanning many pages, just so that one author can borrow some code from another author's product. * End User License Agreements so complex that no one short of an attorney can understand them, let alone the end user who is expected to click I Agree just so they can get on with what they wanted to do. * Illegal distribution of (unmodified) copies of commercial software. * One or more lawyers on hand ready to sue because of one or another asinine reason... broken software, violation of one of the above, DMCA claims. * Vendor lock-in. * Critical bugs which the author/company refuses to fix, on the grounds that the next version will be better anyway. In commercial software, this of course means more money out of the user's pocket to pay for the upgrade. Perhaps you'll notice how these things just don't exist in significant numbers in the open source world, despite having about as many software applications as the closed source world. When something like this does become a problem, we try to *fix* it, usually for free (as the end user sees it anyway). I decline to mention things that are specific to the OS that is usually associated with the closed-source world, since those things could also affect an otherwise purely open-source system built on that OS. -- There are some things in life worth obsessing over. Most things aren't, and when you learn that, life improves. http://starbase.globalpc.net/~ezekowitz Vanessa Ezekowitz vanessaezekow...@gmail.com ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
On Sep 19, 2010, at 2:18 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: No citation is needed - the GPL is a legal document. Bring it to a lawyer if you want a legal opinion. You should never rely on the Internet for legal advice. All we can give you are opinions. Even a *lawyer* on the Internet can only give opinions - they need to know the specifics of your case to give legal advice. As soon as you start yelling for proof, I'm stepping away from it. I'm not a lawyer. You want proof, you need a lawyer. I did not ask for advice or a legal opinion; you expressed one. I only asked you to justify it. You've expressed an opinion that's in contrast to the common how to use the GPL pages. If your opinion is now the party line as it were, it would behoove you to have the various FAQs updated to reflect this. You won't find many people more strongly in favor of OSS (and OSHW) than me. But in that context, I must say that you are you are making a strong argument against the use of open source licensing. Anyone can write software of their own and publish it under copyright protection, for whatever that's worth. But if all that anyone can say about the GPL is consult a lawyer if you actually want to use this, it *really* doesn't help us. I don't know of *any* case where 3b was used, ever. That doesn't mean that it doesn't count. It *has* been used, and much more often than you think. And, you've essentially made the claim that everyone who uses it with online distribution is in violation of the GPL. That's a serious accusation; I don't think that I was remotely out of line to suggest that there should be some justification for it. You have to find witnesses who can attest that the software was NOT made available on the date in question. Very hard to prove a negative. I never suggested that anyone prove a negative. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
