[snip]
> Sorry about that. Sometimes I come across that way, but it's not
> intentional.
:)
> I see no problem whatsoever with including the code anywhere it's
> referenced, whether that be in the cvs, the website, linked to your
> website, in the FAQ, in the docs, whereever.
>
> I do, however, care about burdoning the end users with the
> requirement that they either license this control, or have to
> download/warez the control to get it to build. If it's optional, and
> doesn't cripple the capabilities of your tool, I'm all for it.
Nobody but me will need a license. Warez are high treason anyway,
I'm a professional developer and would never allow anybody to steal
from my guild brothers.
The whole idea of distributing compiled packages is that the
developer has the license, so that the enduser doesn't need one.
Controls usually come in two parts. One is the control itself, the
other is a signed license. Developer machines have both, while user
machines only have the control as such. If the license isn't present,
it won't affect a compiled program.
That's why I have two packages. The source package doesn't contain
the control, so that another developer wouldn't need to bother with
the license. The distribution package is compiled on my machine (with
license) and contains the control.
> If I had more experience with Windows, other than from a sysadmin
> perspective or UI perspective, I would lend my comments. I don't have [snip]
I know :)
> Don't get me wrong, what you've done is great work from what I see
> from the screenshot and the discussions I've read here between Dirk
> and yourself. I fully support it's development and advancement.
> Wherever possible, it is better to find and support any potential free
> alternatives which provide the same or similar functionality.
Of course. I'd rather use free tools, too. But the development of a
control with the functionality this one has (I only use a subset)
would cost at least half a manyear. Well, perhaps less, because you
could reverse engineer, but that's bad style.
I keep a close eye on free tools, and wherever possible I substitute
commercial tools with free ones. But there isn't one that is an
adequate replacement.
> Exactly. Proprietary. Restrictive. Limited. I support it because I
> like the device. I have had many arguments with them in person, over
> and over and over, and they've slowly started to open their eyes. It's
> unfortunate that there are not more converts in their facility, as
> they begin to clamp down on the tools and internalize them (POSE,
> prc-tools, pilrc, etc.; they're trying to pull these in-house, and
> have declared an initiative to do so within the next 3 quarters).
Did you see LinuxDA? They claim to have a Linux optimized for 68x
processors, including the Palm.
If only I had the guts to try it out :)
> What exactly is the name of this component again? What does it
> provide? Simple resizing of a dialog?
It's called "VSElastic", and the vendor was VideoSoft. They merged
with Apex to Component One last year, and the new company developed
a new tool. The old one was cheaper then, and too good to miss.
But remember that as a user you won't notice it, except that there's
another .ocx in the %syspath% (if it's not there allready). As
developer you'll only notice that fonts and child controls (like
buttons, text boxes, everything within the window) won't resize
automatically, because the control is not included in the source
package.
> Is the functionality of the source decreased without the control? Can
> the source be built and function in absence of the control?
No. Yes.
[snip]
> Or obtain it from the original author, no? (albeit with a nag)
Of course. Nothing stops a developer from adding his own controls,
with or without nag. The email would be necessary to get the source
that contains the control, not to get the control itself.
[snip]
> What are the restrictions (imposed by the author of the control)
> about distributing an executable compiled with that control (if any)?
None. It's mine, I paid for it, and I can do with it what I want -
even throw it away ;)
> I have thick skin. I prefer honesty, not costumes. I think we've both
> come clear with our understandings here. I'm not trying to start a
> war. I'm only trying to make sure that we don't cause users any
> additional stress or strain, or that the functionality of your tool or
> Dirk's tool underneath it, isn't decreased by the use of or removal of
> this control.
I thought I had explained that in my first posting. But perhaps I was
talking Windows too much :) I'm sorry about that.
For Win developers controls are as natural as widgets, only that you
don't require the user to download the latest version :p
Lissi
--
Life ain't fair, but the root password helps.
- BOFH
PGP-Fingerprint:
F119 52A9 A520 B1C5 28B7 BDFE 2B72 9E38 479E 31CC
