[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| > Tell me again why we should pay _any_ attention to you then?
|
| It's been suggested to me in a private email that I respond the
| following link:
|
| http://www.lyx.org/news/2315.php3#editorial4
And?
If you only could be as constructive now...
--
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 03:53:14AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> | As to your request for specifics, I haven't decided whether it's worth the
> | effort to dredge up and advocate past ambitious proposals, a subset of which
> | have been outlined on this list ove
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Kuba responded to three of my postings on this thread. Please Lars, can I
| write a brief response without you trying to reignite a week-old flame war?
You are reiterating what we have heard for the umph-teenth time.
| As to your request for specifics, I haven't dec
Kuba responded to three of my postings on this thread. Please Lars, can I
write a brief response without you trying to reignite a week-old flame war?
As to your request for specifics, I haven't decided whether it's worth the
effort to dredge up and advocate past ambitious proposals, a subset of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Things have turned out pretty much following the course that was clear to any
| observer a couple of years ago.
|
| For myself and a (now pretty much dead) klatch of LyX users with different
| ambitions for the software years ago, very little we cared about has changed
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 08:53:02AM -0400, Kuba Ober wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 01:15:49AM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> > > Whilst this is true, it would only make real sense to keep with a worse
> > > menu layout if we expect the total number of current users to forever
> > > exceed the total n
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Let's say that a Qt/mingw/x11 solution for win32 would be much better
> than xforms/cygwin (Claus H solution), and that as an added bonus
> people can also compile that against qt/win and not need X11 (although
> this one cannot be distributed).
Would this one (if eve
> > No, I think this is just a new superficial mess completely independent of
> > 'real' internal changes. However, as this can be rectified by editing
> > lib/ui/default.ui with a simple text editor before releasing 1.4 I don't
> > think this change will do too much damage in the long run.
>
> It
On poniedziałek 07 lipiec 2003 09:24 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 01:15:49AM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> > Whilst this is true, it would only make real sense to keep with a worse
> > menu layout if we expect the total number of current users to forever
> > exceed the total
On piątek 04 lipiec 2003 09:41 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 01:16:31AM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> > > The problem here is not with the GPL, but with the Troll Tech business
> > > model and licensing practices, which puts open source applications
> > > under the GPL in this
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 01:31:27AM +0200, Asger Kunuk Alstrup wrote:
> Unless we can obtain a license to redistribute a (possibly tainted) Qt DLL
> from Trolltech.
That's true; I can't see them being ecstatic about it though
regards
john
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 12:29:36AM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 01:25:24AM +0200, Asger Kunuk Alstrup wrote:
>
> > I understand that statical linking is a problem, but is dynamic linking
> > also a problem?
>
> Not sure, but also requiring each user to take out a license so
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003, John Levon wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 01:25:24AM +0200, Asger Kunuk Alstrup wrote:
>
> > I understand that statical linking is a problem, but is dynamic linking
> > also a problem?
>
> Not sure, but also requiring each user to take out a license so they can
> have the Qt
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 01:25:24AM +0200, Asger Kunuk Alstrup wrote:
> I understand that statical linking is a problem, but is dynamic linking
> also a problem?
Not sure, but also requiring each user to take out a license so they can
have the Qt library doesn't seem to help much ;)
regards
john
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003, John Levon wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 01:18:24AM +0200, Asger Kunuk Alstrup wrote:
>
> > Get a license of Qt for windows so that we can legally redistribute
> > binaries.
>
> Nobody can legally distribute a GPLed app linked against
> non-GPL-compatible libraries that do n
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 01:18:24AM +0200, Asger Kunuk Alstrup wrote:
> Get a license of Qt for windows so that we can legally redistribute
> binaries.
Nobody can legally distribute a GPLed app linked against
non-GPL-compatible libraries that do not form part of the standard
libraries for the targ
I'm surprised we do not once again consider the path of least resistance:
Get a license of Qt for windows so that we can legally redistribute
binaries.
How do we do this?
1) Ask Trolltech for a free license. Matthias works there.
2) Ask Trolltech for a discount, and use some of the LyX founds to
> "larry" == larry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> You conveniently forget that the Qt interface brought us a native
>> Mac OS X interface (and perfectly GPL) with little or no effort.
larry> Of course, I did not forget -- "conveniently" or otherwise --
larry> over two years ago about the Ma
> "Ruurd" == Ruurd Reitsma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ruurd> I think it would even be possible to just switch .dll's,
Ruurd> providing that the 'real' win32 .dll is available from
Ruurd> somewhere. No relinking needed. But...let's see if I manage to
Ruurd> create a mingw X11 qt lib first and
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 02:53:45PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What do you propose be done if someone builds and posts binaries somewhere
> else?
Nothing at all.
In fact, I'd be happy about it.
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have,
nor
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 08:31:28AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:15:08AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> >
> > [...] is bad because people might break the rules?
>
> Any situation that predictibly makes violations of the GPL into standard
> practice is, indeed, bad.
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 02:53:55AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> If it canot be said out in the open... is it then worth saying?
> (as long as it concerns lyx?)
Certainly, the LyX community should strive for an open atmosphere inviting of
comment and feedback, where such an ethos can predo
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 01:15:49AM +0100, John Levon wrote:
>
> Whilst this is true, it would only make real sense to keep with a worse menu
> layout if we expect the total number of current users to forever exceed the
> total number of new users plus the total number of users who switch.
Gadzook
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| > - what all these NN people sympatize with
|
| It took me a minute to figure out what the blazes you are talking about.
|
| I'm not reposting private emails directed to me. But I found it kind of
| interesting, and worth sharing, that the list is considered by so ma
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 12:51:52AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> - feature requests
As I said, over a period of weeks and months, if I decide to become more
involved, I'll sift through my old archives and attempt to reintroduce some of
the nifty but long-abandoned historical ideas/ambitions
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 12:51:52AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
> I have no problems with the changes John has made, even if I am not
> quite familiar with them yet. (Not having recent documents at end of
> the file menu was a problem...)
I'm still a little split over my change here. On the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 12:12:40AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| >
| > And _who_ are you to tell people what they should use their spare time
| > on?
| >
| > Put up or shut up, you are really beginning to annoy me now.
|
| Making fundamental UI changes, for fun
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 12:12:40AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
> And _who_ are you to tell people what they should use their spare time
> on?
>
> Put up or shut up, you are really beginning to annoy me now.
Making fundamental UI changes, for functions that have been around for
what, six
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 05:10:54PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
| >
| > Some content from Larry ! :)
|
| Very funny, John.
|
| > Any permutation is a distribution of some kind. This change in
| > particular reflects the general move to an object-verb interface instead
|
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 06:32:54PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| >
| > You have so far provided a lot of statements about the development of
| > lyx and the lack of new features, about what has been done to the code
| > and not, and what we have lost because of t
What do you propose be done if someone builds and posts binaries somewhere
else? Which is inevitable.
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 12:23:01PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> >
> > Well, distributing the sources of the native version without the
> > binaries is really hypocritical, I think. If these sou
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 05:10:54PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
>
> Some content from Larry ! :)
Very funny, John.
> Any permutation is a distribution of some kind. This change in
> particular reflects the general move to an object-verb interface instead
> of a verb-object interface. Menus in genera
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 06:32:54PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
> You have so far provided a lot of statements about the development of
> lyx and the lack of new features, about what has been done to the code
> and not, and what we have lost because of the drive for GUII.
I've certainly sa
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 10:15:21AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> pursue their agenda. Maybe, finally, time was ripe to reinvigorate some of the
> ambitions I've encountered around the world for LyX software, documented partly
> in the LyX mailing lists, but perhaps more in some archived priva
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:10:54AM -0700, Kayvan A. Sylvan wrote:
> Do you have any examples? Be as specific as you can.
Kayvan, I returned to evaluate whether to jump back into the LyX effort over a
period of weeks and months (as I said in one of my first postings in 2003).
Those focused on GU
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 05:45:42PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > I think you are now fudding all over the place.
|
| What I find most remarkable about this discussion, Lars, is the emails I've
| received from sympathetic readers who don't want to have to deal w
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:18:29AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I've always wanted the best for LyX. I'm sorry that certain participants
> around here say, basically, that it's not worth their time to respond with any
> substance, then suggest there is no substance to the discussion (LOL) ..
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 05:45:42PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> I think you are now fudding all over the place.
What I find most remarkable about this discussion, Lars, is the emails I've
received from sympathetic readers who don't want to have to deal with the
"ramifications" of posting th
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 08:31:28AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:15:08AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> >
> > [...] is bad because people might break the rules?
>
> Any situation that predictibly makes violations of the GPL into standard
> practice is, indeed, bad.
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 08:51:56AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I've been using LyX for six years now, and I find
> >
> > - Layout -> Document
> > - Layout -> Paragraph
> > - Layout -> Character
> >
> > very logical now.
>
> Interestingly, over my many years of using LyX, I've wat
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 03:05:42PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> Certainly not. But not shouting 'veto' does not mean it is unhearable.
"Your objection has been noted", I said acerbically ;)
> > There are technical reasons for the change. Again, you're too lazy to
> > actually argue the points f
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 01:49:06PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
>
> Fundamental changes sometimes cause problems during periods of
> transition. This does not necessarily imply the change is bad.
Of course not.
But as an infrequent observer over a period of years, it's really striking to
see that
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 02:33:10PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> I've been using LyX for six years now, and I find
>
> - Layout -> Document
> - Layout -> Paragraph
> - Layout -> Character
>
> very logical now.
Interestingly, over my many years of using LyX, I've watched other word
proc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| I've heard the canard of "feature bloat" from some.
|
| I'd take a few more menu items over boatloads of Evil Red Text any day.
I think you are now fudding all over the place.
--
Lgb
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 10:05:23AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> Because LyX without the 'GUII effort' and further cleanups is in a state
> where adding new features is very difficult. Moreover, even if adding a
> new feature turns out to be possible it most likely adds to the current
> mess and
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| There is consensus amongst everybody except you. That includes Lars and
| JMarc.
If consensus include "I can live with it", then ok.
--
Lgb
--- Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andre> I thought Ruurd offered (d) as a clean way for us but with less
> Andre> hassle for the user than in the other 'clean' solution. I was
> Andre> just trying to say that the hassle for the user is not much
> Andre> less than to let him comp
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:37:45AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> So what you are actually proposing is that the current developers or
> whoever distributes LyX (including Kayvan, the Linux distributors etc)
> take some legal risk just for the benefit of a random Windows user that's
> neither abl
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:15:08AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> [...] is bad because people might break the rules?
Any situation that predictibly makes violations of the GPL into standard
practice is, indeed, bad. That's an indictment of Troll Tech's practices, not
LyX or QT development by a
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 11:04:14AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>
> larry> I was rather shrill about the QT effort, in particular. In
> larry> light of Trolltech's dual support for Unix and Windows, the QT
> larry> frontend has always seemed destined to run aground on precisely
> larry> this
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 12:23:01PM +0200, Andre Poenitz spake thusly:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 11:53:54AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
...
> > However, if it appears that Ruurd's code can help building a Mingw/X11
> > version of LyX (which would be lighter than a cygwin version and
> > be
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 02:57:31PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Andre> I thought Ruurd offered (d) as a clean way for us but with less
> Andre> hassle for the user than in the other 'clean' solution. I was
> Andre> just trying to say that the hassle for the user is not much
> Andre> less th
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 01:49:06PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
>
> Entirely wasting my time, but ...
>
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 02:33:10PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> > I guess you'd hear me as soon anybody tries to _release_ 1.4.0 like this.
>
> Are you seriously stating you'll veto this ? A
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andre> On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 02:48:02PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Andre> wrote: Ok, but if some user want to 'change the library' he'd
Andre> need to re-link LyX, doesn't he? And that would mean at least a
Andre> working linker, which
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 02:48:02PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Andre> Ok, but if some user want to 'change the library' he'd need to
> Andre> re-link LyX, doesn't he? And that would mean at least a working
> Andre> linker, which is less than a full-blown compiler + autotool +
> Andre> ...,
Entirely wasting my time, but ...
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 02:33:10PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> I guess you'd hear me as soon anybody tries to _release_ 1.4.0 like this.
Are you seriously stating you'll veto this ? AFAIK you don't have this
right over the menus.
> > Especially as you are to
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andre> On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 02:04:55PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Andre> wrote:
>> > "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
Andre> How do you add some 'win32 window system library' without
Andre> linking LyX? I.e.
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Contrary to the 'mathed font change nightmare', there seem to be users
| (other than myself) complaining about the seemingly randomly shifted menu
| items. If you check you might see a coincidence of most of my whining with
| some user complaining about
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 01:18:31PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 02:11:01PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> > > Your constant (*far* too late) whining about this is starting to annoy
> > > me, I must admit.
> >
> > Good.
>
> OK, then I shall ignore you entirely on this topic
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 02:11:01PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > Your constant (*far* too late) whining about this is starting to annoy
> > me, I must admit.
>
> Good.
OK, then I shall ignore you entirely on this topic. Especially as you
are too lazy to do the groundwork to argue your case.
j
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 02:04:55PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Andre> How do you add some 'win32 window system library' without
> Andre> linking LyX? I.e. what's the benefit over 'just giving sources
> Andre> and compile instr
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 12:56:42PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 10:05:23AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> > That's really bad.
> >
> > No, I think this is just a new superficial mess completely independent of
> > 'real' internal changes. However, as this can be rectified
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andre> How do you add some 'win32 window system library' without
Andre> linking LyX? I.e. what's the benefit over 'just giving sources
Andre> and compile instructions'? (Legally, it sound ok to me...)
Qt/X11 for win32 is GPL.
JMarc
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 12:46:22PM +0100, Ruurd Reitsma wrote:
> > I think there are only three clean solutions:
> >
> > (a) Provide detailed instruction how to build LyX/Qt on Windows, but do
> > not distibute prebuild binaries. No need to ask contributors for
> > that.
> >
> > (b) C
> "Ruurd" == Ruurd Reitsma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ruurd> Anyway, there's also scenario:
Ruurd> d) Create a Win32 X11 Qt lib from the GPL'ed free edition. Use
Ruurd> that for development & distribution. Let the user add the
Ruurd> 'win32 window system' Qt library.
Ruurd> How does that so
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 10:05:23AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> That's really bad.
>
> No, I think this is just a new superficial mess completely independent of
> 'real' internal changes. However, as this can be rectified by editing
> lib/ui/default.ui with a simple text editor before releasin
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 11:53:54AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> I think we should distribute the source, but not the binaries.
> Andre> ... of the 'native' version I mean.
>
> Well, distributing the sources of the native ve
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I think we should distribute the source, but not the binaries.
Andre> ... of the 'native' version I mean.
Well, distributing the sources of the native version without the
binaries is really hypocritical, I think. If these source do not
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 11:17:49AM +0200, Andre' Poenitz wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 11:09:11AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > That is how this discussion started. However, there is little point in
> > hosting Ruurd's source and binaries if we do not want to distribute
> > these binari
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 11:09:11AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> That is how this discussion started. However, there is little point in
> hosting Ruurd's source and binaries if we do not want to distribute
> these binaries. Of course, if the goal changed to having a Qt/X11
> binary for windo
> "Michael" == Michael Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Michael> I would also like to see some native Windows port. With
Michael> xforms and X-Window, we will never penetrate the Window
Michael> world.
Of course it would be nice. But I tend to think (after some
hesitation) that we should j
> "larry" == larry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
larry> The problem here is not with the GPL, but with the Trolltech
larry> business model and licensing practices, which puts open source
larry> applications under the GPL in this untenable position if
larry> developers wish to release Windows ve
Michael Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I would also like to see some native Windows port. With xforms and
| X-Window, we will never penetrate the Window world.
Has that ever been a goal?
| I would also like to see one site (i.e. www.lyx.org) that provides
| binaries for all platforms (Wi
John Levon wrote:
> perhaps unsurprisingly i am all for it
Me too.
I'm with Edwin and John for the practical reasons Edwin already pointed out.
It might sound egoistic, but a native win port would just make my life much
easier.
So if you change your mind and need my ok you'll cert
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 09:55:51AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Yes, there certainly have been major improvements in the source code,
> lots of "clean up", etc. The "GUII" effort, as you call it.
>
> But you'd be hard pressed to offer a host of significant new features,
> from the user's s
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 06:41:43PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> As you say below, users on the Windows platform building binaries
> linked to the QT non-commercial windows toolkit, and distributing them,
> will be breaking the LyX GPL license.
You are right, but the critical point is 'distr
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 10:26:03AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What will happen, in reality, is that a handful of users will build linked
> binaries and distribute them to others. Some of this may fall within the
> dubious inside-the-same-organization GPL "exemption", but most will not.
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 07:47:59PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
|
| > Sorry, your head is stuck in the ground ...
| > It's frankly a waste of my time ...
| > You obviously have no conception ...
| > You're making statements. You're not actually saying anything...
| > You'
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Do you recall the attempt -- five years ago or more? -- to do a major rewrite
| that was scuttled? The coding effort reverted back to the in-place,
| functional--hack-laden--code, in the interests of continuing to improve LyX
| over a reasonable time frame.
Do you al
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 01:46:23PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It's a pity that you feel the need to jump all over someone making
> a few observation for the first time in YEARS, rather than let them
> settle in, and maybe to get some broader community reaction.
I don't walk into a saloon,
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 07:47:59PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> Sorry, your head is stuck in the ground ...
> It's frankly a waste of my time ...
> You obviously have no conception ...
> You're making statements. You're not actually saying anything...
> You're arguing against a chimera I'm afraid .
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 09:55:51AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> My head is not "in the ground". We obviously have longstanding, dramatic
>
> But you'd be hard pressed to offer a host of significant new features, from the
> user's standpoint, introduced in the last two years.
Sorry, your
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 01:25:58PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
>
> This isn't true: the licensing scheme is clearly documented. We were and
> are well aware of its drawbacks.
I didn't exactly start questioning the QT effort yesterday, as you well know.
No one would doubt your understanding of the d
John Levon wrote:
> > perhaps unsurprisingly i am all for it
>
> Me too.
I'm with Edwin and John for the practical reasons Edwin already pointed out.
It might sound egoistic, but a native win port would just make my life much
easier.
So if you change your mind and need my ok you'll certainly hav
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 06:41:43PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Is there another option, that doesn't require *unrealistic* local builds?
No, there isn't. That does *not* make Troll Tech the bad guys. For
starters, they've released a pretty damn good toolkit under the GPL for
two major platf
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 01:16:31AM +0100, John Levon wrote:
>
> > The problem here is not with the GPL, but with the Troll Tech business model and
> > licensing practices, which puts open source applications under the GPL in this
> > untenable position if developers wish to release Windows version
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 10:26:03AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> And it provides another example of the GPL failing to meet the requirements of
> evolving software applications -- more grist for those critical of open source.
Yes, the GPL has problems. The GPL is not an ideal license in many
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 11:37:37AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Some context: Ruurd would like us to distribute this port (the binaries for
> now), but this is only possible if we change our license to explicitly allow
> for linking against Qt non-commercial binary-only version.
Unless I'
who says (c) is unfeasible, it all depends on who agrees
edwin
-Original Message-
From: Andre Poenitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 04/07/2003 14:29
To: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Cc: LyX Mechanics; Ruurd Reitsma; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 02:11:44PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Andre> Even if so, this would not be a problem. LyX still works with
> Andre> xforms, doesn't it. In this case the Qt code may be dead
> Andre> ballast, but nobody forbids me to write 'void foo() {} int
> Andre> main() {}' whic
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andre> On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:49:39PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Andre> wrote:
>> > "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
Andre> Am I correct in assuming that the 'problem' is the
Andre> _distribution_ of the pr
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:23:45PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> perhaps unsurprisingly i am all for it
Me too. There is a huge market for LyX on Win32 and we currently have
serious barriers to adoption.
LyX alone is not likely to cause any significant migration from Windows
to Linux or another f
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:49:39PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Andre> Am I correct in assuming that the 'problem' is the
> Andre> _distribution_ of the pre-compiled binary but not creating and
> Andre> using such a thing priva
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:37:52PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> On Fri Jul 4 2003 12:25, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > The legal difference is that the xforms exceptions has been in there all
> > the time and all code was contributed to GPL + xforms exception, not to
> > GPL + Qt exception.
>
> i wasn'
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andre> Am I correct in assuming that the 'problem' is the
Andre> _distribution_ of the pre-compiled binary but not creating and
Andre> using such a thing privately?
Andre> If not, ignore the rest of this post.
I am not sure that one is a
On Fri Jul 4 2003 12:25, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> The legal difference is that the xforms exceptions has been in there all
> the time and all code was contributed to GPL + xforms exception, not to
> GPL + Qt exception.
i wasn't referring to the legal difference but to the (lack of a) moral
differen
> "Edwin" == Edwin Leuven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Edwin> perhaps unsurprisingly i am all for it i don't really see a
Edwin> difference between xforms before it was open and qt-win, yet
Edwin> there is an exception for xforms in the license
The xforms license was rather: ``do whatever you
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:23:45PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> perhaps unsurprisingly i am all for it
>
> i don't really see a difference between xforms before it was open and qt-win,
> yet there is an exception for xforms in the license
The legal difference is that the xforms exceptions has be
perhaps unsurprisingly i am all for it
i don't really see a difference between xforms before it was open and qt-win,
yet there is an exception for xforms in the license
then a practical reason that concerns myself is that i moved to paris, and at
the institute where i am based everything is win
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 11:37:37AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Lars is not sure that he agrees with such a change, since we may not
> want to allow the use of LyX under a non-free toolkit and OS (Lars,
> correct me if I'm wrong). I am not sure where I stand myself.
Same for me.
Am I corr
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
