On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 05:38:26PM +0100, John Emmas via gtk-devel-list wrote:
> On 28/05/2017 14:41, Sébastien Wilmet wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 09:02:21AM +0100, John Emmas via gtk-devel-list
> > wrote:
> > > the following 11 header files stipulate GPL:-
> > >
> > >gbase64.h
>
On 28/05/2017 14:41, Sébastien Wilmet wrote:
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 09:02:21AM +0100, John Emmas via gtk-devel-list wrote:
the following 11 header files stipulate GPL:-
gbase64.h
gbookmarkfile.h
gchecksum.h
ghmac.h
glib-private.h
glib-unix.h
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 09:02:21AM +0100, John Emmas via gtk-devel-list wrote:
> Hi guys - whilst checking something else this morning I came across an
> anomaly in the licensing mechanism for glib / gtk+ etc.
>
> The vast majority of the header files state that it's LGPL. But
&g
Hi guys - whilst checking something else this morning I came across an
anomaly in the licensing mechanism for glib / gtk+ etc.
The vast majority of the header files state that it's LGPL. But
occasionally there are GPL headers here and there. For example in
glib-2, the following 11 header
Le lundi 23 avril 2012, à 02:04 +0900, Evgeniy Philippov a écrit :
В Чтв, 19/04/2012 в 08:13 +0200, Vincent Untz пишет:
Le mercredi 18 avril 2012, à 13:19 -0400, Colin Walters a écrit :
On Tue, 2012-04-17 at 20:50 +0900, Evgeniy Philippov wrote:
Evgeniy wrote:
... Is this possible?
В Пнд, 23/04/2012 в 09:37 +0200, Vincent Untz пишет:
Why not just ask your initial question there? It's a standard mailing
list, so don't be afraid of using it. There's no specific laws there.
I would think you'd be in a good position to help the people on
legal-list clarify the question if
Dieter Verfaillie wrote:
Another option might be to use the LoadLibrary() + GetProcAddress()
technique to get at the functions you need, which is already being
used with success in GLib and GTK+ [1]. Doing so makes it unnecessary
to redistribute proprietary licensed header files with GTK+
В Чтв, 19/04/2012 в 08:13 +0200, Vincent Untz пишет:
Le mercredi 18 avril 2012, à 13:19 -0400, Colin Walters a écrit :
On Tue, 2012-04-17 at 20:50 +0900, Evgeniy Philippov wrote:
Evgeniy wrote:
... Is this possible? My concern is this WSDK EULA.
Jernej Simončič wrote:
The
Le mercredi 18 avril 2012, à 13:19 -0400, Colin Walters a écrit :
On Tue, 2012-04-17 at 20:50 +0900, Evgeniy Philippov wrote:
Evgeniy wrote:
... Is this possible? My concern is this WSDK EULA.
Jernej Simončič wrote:
The VirtIO drivers for Qemu-KVM build with the Windows Driver Kit,
On 04/17/2012 01:50 PM, Evgeniy Philippov wrote:
(I didn't yet research where my possible future UIA code goes to:
probably to ATK, but I didn't study yet.)
Why on ATK? ATK is an accessibility abstraction like UIA. What do you
want to add on ATK in relation to UIA?
BR
--
Alejandro Piñeiro
On Tue, 2012-04-17 at 20:50 +0900, Evgeniy Philippov wrote:
Evgeniy wrote:
... Is this possible? My concern is this WSDK EULA.
Jernej Simončič wrote:
The VirtIO drivers for Qemu-KVM build with the Windows Driver Kit, and they
include the following in the license: ...
Okay. Is it
Hello everyone,
I'd be happy to add support for Microsoft layers in GTK+, but there is
a problem with Windows SDK's license. The uiautomation.h and other UI
Automation (UIA) headers cannot probably be distributed with GTK+.
These headers are part of Windows SDK.
Windows SDK for Windows 7 and
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 20:17:41 +0900, Евгений Филиппов wrote:
Is this possible? My concern is this WSDK EULA.
The VirtIO drivers for Qemu-KVM build with the Windows Driver Kit, and they
include the following in the license:
,-
|
|This software is licensed under the GNU General Public
Evgeniy wrote:
... Is this possible? My concern is this WSDK EULA.
Jernej Simončič wrote:
The VirtIO drivers for Qemu-KVM build with the Windows Driver Kit, and they
include the following in the license: ...
Okay. Is it possible to include my possible future UIA code into GTK+
codebase if I
Hi all,
I was wondering if i can get some pointers on using glib (LGPL) code
on some iphone software we plan to do.
Even though LGPL lets you be compatible as long as you provide,
minimal source, object files plus instructions + “permit the user to
recombine or relink the Application with a
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 16:26:27 -0700
Bryant H Lee brya...@us.ibm.com wrote:
I'm currently working with my development team in consuming GTK+ for
our development and use with Mozilla Firefox and before including
into my product I needed to verify a couple items:
1. Is there a policy /
I'm currently working with my development team in consuming Pango for our
development and use with Mozilla Firefox and before including into my
product I needed to verify a couple items:
1. Is there a policy / procedure in place on how code is maintained?
Mainly need some assurances that code
I'm currently working with my development team in consuming GTK+ for our
development and use with Mozilla Firefox and before including into my
product I needed to verify a couple items:
1. Is there a policy / procedure in place on how code is maintained?
Mainly need some assurances that code
Hi,
I am new to Linux development and would like to develop a GUI using
gtk+. The following are my queries
1. Can I write a close source software using GTK+?
2. Do I need my source code to be licensed under GNU LGPL 2.1?
3. I would like to use dbus libs along with GTK+. Is it pissible under
On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 14:32 +0530, sushil wrote:
Hi,
I am new to Linux development and would like to develop a GUI using
gtk+. The following are my queries
1. Can I write a close source software using GTK+?
Short answer: yes, you just have to share any modifications you make to
GTK+
Hi!
I have written a library [1] that is currently under consideration for
(at least partial) inclusion in Ruby 2.0 [2]. I used GLib as a
reference implementation while writing this library and I am thus
wondering exactly how licensing works in this situation.
GLib is released under the LGPL
licensing works in this situation.
GLib is released under the LGPL and Ruby is released under its own
license [3]. According to the Wikipedia entry [4], the FSF has
claimed that: This is a Free Software license, compatible with the
GPL via an explicit dual-licensing clause. [5]
I thus wonder
On Tue, 2004-11-02 at 23:43 +0100, Raven wrote:
I've got some questions regarding licensing of GTK.
Please read through the terms of the LGPL [1]. It's not that difficult
of a document to understand. As with any source code license, you must
understand the terms of the license itself.
*1
Hi.
I've got some questions regarding licensing of GTK.
*1. Is it ok to use GTK to write software, that is proprietary, commercial
and closed-source?
*2. We are starting writing a toolkit/framework dealing with some high
level of abstraction data-to-GUI patterns. Would it be if we made it based
I would like to develop a computer program which will
be supplied with our equipment to our customer. I am
thinking about using GTK for user interface of the
program which is proprietary. GkT licensing term is
GTK+ is free software and part of the GNU Project.
However, the licensing terms
-0700, ck wrote:
I would like to develop a computer program which will
be supplied with our equipment to our customer. I am
thinking about using GTK for user interface of the
program which is proprietary. GkT licensing term is
GTK+ is free software and part of the GNU Project.
However
Read the historical discussion in the archives. Summary:
- Distribute the libraries to use (eg. gtk, etc) as standard packages,
including source is fine.
- Linking with those libraries at run time (ie. do not compile them into
your application. Normal way of doing things) is fine.
- Place
On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 06:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Although I can't see that the desire on the part of the authors for these
copyrights was to eliminate the possible participation of proprietary
software in free software environments such as
Hi,
Is there a means by which I can acquire permission to link to all of the
libraries associated with, and including gtk for the production of a
commercial product?
I would like to write several programs that would be nice to have, and I
need to eat.
I'm hoping that it's possible so that I
GTK+ is released under the GPL. As for your other questions, see the GNU
GPL FAQ:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
As for the GPL itself:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
Linus
___
gtk-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 15:47, Linus Walleij wrote:
GTK+ is released under the GPL. As for your other questions, see the GNU
GPL FAQ:
No, GTK+ is under the LGPL. From the GTK+ front page, paragraph 2:
GTK+ is free software and part of the GNU Project. However, the
licensing terms for GTK
There was a very detailed thread on this subject not too long ago. Check
the archives for the LGPL topic (within the last two months). The net as
I understood it was, if you supply a dynamically linked executable, then
there's no obligation to supply source, or even object files. The key is
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Is there a means by which I can acquire permission to link to all of the
libraries associated with, and including gtk for the production of a
commercial product?
I would like to write several programs that would be nice to have, and I
need
33 matches
Mail list logo
