473,320 Members | 1,883 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post Job

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 473,320 software developers and data experts.

Big development in the GUI realm

RM
For all you GUI developers, things just got a little more interesting.
Trolltech will soon be offering the QT GUI toolkit for Windows under
the GPL license. That means that PyQt may become a much more popular
option in the near future. Unfortunately, some things available for
the commercial customers of Trolltech are not available to the GPL
users. For example, from their FAQ, it seems that no precompiled
binaries will be provided. Support for comercial compilers will not be
built in, only for gcc (through Cygwin?). Also, their database drivers
will not be available. Oh, well, I guess you can't have it all. Good
news though!

See more here:

www.trolltech.com

I wonder how this is going to affect the GUI landscape.

Jul 18 '05 #1
42 1455
On Monday 07 February 2005 17:52, RM wrote:
For all you GUI developers, things just got a little more interesting.
Trolltech will soon be offering the QT GUI toolkit for Windows under
the GPL license. That means that PyQt may become a much more popular
option in the near future. Unfortunately, some things available for
the commercial customers of Trolltech are not available to the GPL
users. For example, from their FAQ, it seems that no precompiled
binaries will be provided. Support for comercial compilers will not be
built in, only for gcc (through Cygwin?). Also, their database drivers
will not be available. Oh, well, I guess you can't have it all. Good
news though!

See more here:

www.trolltech.com

I wonder how this is going to affect the GUI landscape.


Not 100% right. Only drivers for commercial databases will not be included,
mysql and co. are available.
Jul 18 '05 #2
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 18:30:18 +0100, Michael Goettsche
<ma**@tuxipuxi.org> wrote:
Not 100% right. Only drivers for commercial databases will not be included,
mysql and co. are available.


What I find weird, is that I always understood the GPL meaning that
you must give back any contribution you made to the source code of the
GPLed code, but not if you're just using either a binary distribution
(eg. a DLL) or if you copy/pasted the code as is, with no changes on
your own.

If this is true, then the fact that Qt is now GPLed for Windows means
that I should be able to use this widget set even in commercial apps
since I'm not making any change to Qt, just using it.

Am I totally off-target?

Cheers
Luke.
Jul 18 '05 #3
"Luke Skywalker" wrote:
What I find weird, is that I always understood the GPL meaning that
you must give back any contribution you made to the source code of the
GPLed code, but not if you're just using either a binary distribution
(eg. a DLL) or if you copy/pasted the code as is, with no changes on
your own.

If this is true, then the fact that Qt is now GPLed for Windows means
that I should be able to use this widget set even in commercial apps
since I'm not making any change to Qt, just using it.

Am I totally off-target?


yes. for details, see the "Combining work with code released under the
GPL" section on this page:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

</F>

Jul 18 '05 #4
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 19:41:11 +0100, "Fredrik Lundh"
<fr*****@pythonware.com> wrote:
Am I totally off-target?


yes. for details, see the "Combining work with code released under the
GPL" section on this page:


Mmmm.. The FAQ isn't very clear about whether it's allowed to write a
proprietary EXE that calls a GPLed DLL:

"However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software
alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make
sure that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms length,
that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a
single program. The difference between this and "incorporating" the
GPL-covered software is partly a matter of substance and partly form.
The substantive part is this: if the two programs are combined so that
they become effectively two parts of one program, then you can't treat
them as two separate programs. So the GPL has to cover the whole
thing."

Considering the fact that the Qt DLL exist by themselves, that the
version used is the one provided by Qt, and that the EXE uses a
standard, open way to communicate with it, the above does seem to say
this use would be valid. Anybody knows of a similar case and the
output?

Luke.

Jul 18 '05 #5
Luke Skywalker wrote:
Considering the fact that the Qt DLL exist by themselves, that the
version used is the one provided by Qt, and that the EXE uses a
standard, open way to communicate with it, the above does seem to say
this use would be valid.


http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq....ereAggregation

"/.../ If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address
space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.

By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are
communication mechanisms normally used between two separate
programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules
normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the
communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal
data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts
as combined into a larger program."

</F>

Jul 18 '05 #6
On 2005-02-07, Luke Skywalker <lu**@tatooine.planet> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 19:41:11 +0100, "Fredrik Lundh"
<fr*****@pythonware.com> wrote:
Am I totally off-target?
yes. for details, see the "Combining work with code released under the
GPL" section on this page:


Mmmm.. The FAQ isn't very clear about whether it's allowed to write a
proprietary EXE that calls a GPLed DLL:


Yes it is allowed. You are always allowed to write proprietary
programs that incorporate GPL code. What you are not allowed
to do is distribute those programs under a license that's not
the GPL.
Considering the fact that the Qt DLL exist by themselves, that the
version used is the one provided by Qt, and that the EXE uses a
standard, open way to communicate with it, the above does seem to say
this use would be valid. Anybody knows of a similar case and the
output?


My understanding is that what you propose is not valid. An EXE
that uses a GPL'd DLL must be distributed according to the
terms of the GPL. Were that not the case, the LGPL would not
have been needed.

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Yow! Maybe I should
at have asked for my Neutron
visi.com Bomb in PAISLEY--
Jul 18 '05 #7
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Luke Skywalker wrote:
Considering the fact that the Qt DLL exist by themselves, that the
version used is the one provided by Qt, and that the EXE uses a
standard, open way to communicate with it, the above does seem to say
this use would be valid.


http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq....ereAggregation

"/.../ If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address
space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.

By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are
communication mechanisms normally used between two separate
programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules
normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the
communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal
data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts
as combined into a larger program."

</F>

Yes, that is what the FSF GPL FAQ says. However, the GPL itself says:

"[Section 0] Activities other than copying, distribution and
modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope."

There is not, AFAICS, any formal definition of what is meant by
"modification" in the GPL.

Section 2.b of the GPL says:

"b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part
thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
under the terms of this License."

and Section 2 goes on to say:

"These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and
can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on
the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this
License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire
whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it."

Thus, it seems to me, and to the expert legal advice which we sought
(note the scope of the advice was Australian law only) that provided no
GLPed source or object code is mixed, included or combined with
non-GPLed code, and that the GPLed and non-GPLed code are distributed or
otherwise made available in packages which are very clearly separate
works, and that any interaction between the two is restricted to
runtime, then the GPL does not require that non-GPLed code to be
distributed under the GPL.

It is arguable whether that opinion is at odds with the sentiments
expressed in the FSF GPL FAQ - it depends whether importing two python
modules into the same namespace is considered equivalent to, as the FAQ
says, "run linked together in a shared address space", but ultimately,
it is what the GPL license text says, not what the FSF FAQ says, which
matters.

Note that I am not in favour of or advocating any attempt to circumvent
or undermine the GPL. I just think it is important to be guided by what
software licenses actually say, rather than by what the authors of the
licenses wished they had said in retrospect.

Tim C

Jul 18 '05 #8
> For all you GUI developers, things just got a little more interesting.
Trolltech will soon be offering the QT GUI toolkit for Windows under
the GPL license. That means that PyQt may become a much more popular
option in the near future.


This applies to QT-4 only.
I wonder how much of PyQT is ready for QT4?

Anyway its time for a PyQT based VB-killer [ a GPL one :) ].
--
damjan
Jul 18 '05 #9
Luke Skywalker wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 18:30:18 +0100, Michael Goettsche.
<ma**@tuxipuxi.org> wrote:
Not 100% right. Only drivers for commercial databases will not be included,
mysql and co. are available.

What I find weird, is that I always understood the GPL meaning that
you must give back any contribution you made to the source code of the
GPLed code, but not if you're just using either a binary distribution
(eg. a DLL) or if you copy/pasted the code as is, with no changes on
your own.

If this is true, then the fact that Qt is now GPLed for Windows means
that I should be able to use this widget set even in commercial apps
since I'm not making any change to Qt, just using it.

Am I totally off-target?

Yes.

The GPL only dictates what you *must* do when you re-distribute GPL'd
code, or code derived from GPL'd code - and there's substantial room for
disagreement about what is and what is';t a derived product, with a
recent opinion suggesting that the FSF would regard importing a GPL'd
Python module as making your Python program constitute a "derived product".

As long as you don't redistribute anything you are free to do whatever
you want with GPL'd code. The intent of the license is essentially to
stop proprietary freeloaders from benefiting from GPL'd code without
giving anything back to the community. Microsoft choose to call this
"viral", but as usual they are talking out of their wallet.

regards
Steve
--
Meet the Python developers and your c.l.py favorites March 23-25
Come to PyCon DC 2005 http://www.pycon.org/
Steve Holden http://www.holdenweb.com/
Jul 18 '05 #10
huy
RM wrote:
For all you GUI developers, things just got a little more interesting.
Trolltech will soon be offering the QT GUI toolkit for Windows under
the GPL license. That means that PyQt may become a much more popular
option in the near future. Unfortunately, some things available for
the commercial customers of Trolltech are not available to the GPL
users. For example, from their FAQ, it seems that no precompiled
binaries will be provided. Support for comercial compilers will not be
built in, only for gcc (through Cygwin?).


Isn't this just the same thing with a different spin. There was always
an available distribution for linux for non-commercial use. Windows was
always the problem. You still can't use it for windows without knowing
how to compile the thing on windows.

huy
Jul 18 '05 #11
Is there a "GPL for Dummies" out there??? :-)

Sorry if I am asking a question that has already been asked/answered in
another form.

In any case, let's say I use Python to create an application that uses
some module that is GPL. So what are my options?
1. Distribute my app as closed source but with source, available upon
request and clearly stated so in my license, for the GPL'ed module. But
the code to my app only is not available as it is closed source.
2. Distribute my app with the source code available upon request, along
with the code of any other GPL'ed modules that my app uses.

I don't know if any other option is possible. Do my stated options
cover the possibilities and if so, which of these are the correct legal
one that I would follow?

Thanks,
-Kartic

Jul 18 '05 #12
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 07:57:51 +1100, Tim Churches
<tc***@optushome.com.au> wrote:
Thus, it seems to me, and to the expert legal advice which we sought
(note the scope of the advice was Australian law only) that provided no
GLPed source or object code is mixed, included or combined with
non-GPLed code, and that the GPLed and non-GPLed code are distributed or
otherwise made available in packages which are very clearly separate
works, and that any interaction between the two is restricted to
runtime, then the GPL does not require that non-GPLed code to be
distributed under the GPL.


That's how I understood things, ie. calling a standard, clearly
independent (ie. EXE or DLL) binary downloaded from the project's web
site and just calling it is not covered by the GPL since no change has
been made whatsoever to the original work.

Which makes sense, since the goal of the GPL is to make sure that no
one can steal the code, correct bugs or add features without
redistributing those changes.

Muddy waters, indeed :-)

Luke.
Jul 18 '05 #13
Tim Churches wrote:
Thus, it seems to me, and to the expert legal advice which we sought (note the scope of the advice
was Australian law only) that provided no GLPed source or object code is mixed, included or
combined with non-GPLed code


and how exactly are you going to load a DLL from an EXE file with-
out "mixing, including, or combining" the two?

I don't see how the legal advice you got is incompatible with the FAQ;
they both say that as long as you keep things separate, you're in the clear.
but as soon as you mix things, the GPL applies.

</F>

Jul 18 '05 #14
> Isn't this just the same thing with a different spin. There was always
an available distribution for linux for non-commercial use. Windows was
always the problem. You still can't use it for windows without knowing
how to compile the thing on windows.


There'll be people that know how to compile :), and they'll be able to
release & distibute binaries... Previously you couldn't even compile the
GPL QT on windows, since it lacks the low-level win32 api calls that do all
the work.

--
damjan
Jul 18 '05 #15
Kartic schreef:
In any case, let's say I use Python to create an application that uses
some module that is GPL. So what are my options?


For your own personal use: doesn't mather.

If you want to distribute it, your application must be GPL'ed, so *all*
source code must be made available for those you distribute it to.

--
JanC

"Be strict when sending and tolerant when receiving."
RFC 1958 - Architectural Principles of the Internet - section 3.9
Jul 18 '05 #16
"Kartic" <ka******************@gmail.com> writes:
Is there a "GPL for Dummies" out there??? :-)

Sorry if I am asking a question that has already been asked/answered in
another form.

In any case, let's say I use Python to create an application that uses
some module that is GPL. So what are my options?
1. Distribute my app as closed source but with source, available upon
request and clearly stated so in my license, for the GPL'ed module. But
the code to my app only is not available as it is closed source.


You can't do this one. At least, that's the stand that the FSF is
taking.

I wonder about distributing an installation tool that grabs the GPL'ed
module from it's "standard" location and just installing it? That way,
you're not distributing any GPL'ed code, so your code can be
distributed however you want. It would seem that that would have to be
legal, otherwise apt-get and CPAN would be legally problematical.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
Jul 18 '05 #17
Dennis Lee Bieber <wl*****@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
hassle to code, but if your application could dynamically select from
whatever toolkit is available on the machine, you (and I should emphasis
that this is an impersonal/generic "you" I reference) might be able to
argue an exemption from the QT license.


So maybe it's time to resurrect anygui, maybe in a simplified version
which can only interface to, say, PyQt or Tkinter -- 'eithergui' maybe.
Alex
Jul 18 '05 #18
> > users. For example, from their FAQ, it seems that no precompiled
binaries will be provided. Support for comercial compilers will not be
built in, only for gcc (through Cygwin?).


Isn't this just the same thing with a different spin. There was always
an available distribution for linux for non-commercial use. Windows was
always the problem. You still can't use it for windows without knowing
how to compile the thing on windows.


Well, if it's GPLed, can't i simply compile it and distribute a GPLed
..DLL with the source code for everyone?
Jul 18 '05 #19
> >>Considering the fact that the Qt DLL exist by themselves, that the
version used is the one provided by Qt, and that the EXE uses a
standard, open way to communicate with it, the above does seem to say
this use would be valid.


http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq....ereAggregation

"/.../ If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address
space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.

By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are
communication mechanisms normally used between two separate
programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules
normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the
communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal
data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts
as combined into a larger program."

</F>


This is odd. They claim it's a GPL'ed version, but it's a trolltech
license that forces you to release your code under gpl even tought
their's not!

I'm not against a company getting it's share with their product.
that's what motivated them in the first place. but DONT LIE! don't
call it gpl when it's not.

Gpl make it very explicity it deals with the program as a whole, in
the meaning of a executable code. What they're trying to achive here
is that, by adding this paragraph, they will cover the "dll use" under
the gpl.

By that cover-all definition they came up, i can't use Internet
Explorer to see a site hosted with a gpl'ed server! i can't even use a
BSD program to grep a file!

anyway... it will only mater when people with money cares. I already
have 3 choices.
Jul 18 '05 #20
Grant Edwards wrote:
My understanding is that what you propose is not valid. An EXE
that uses a GPL'd DLL must be distributed according to the
terms of the GPL. Were that not the case, the LGPL would not
have been needed.


I believe this is the case only in simple situation where gpl-ed dll is
_required_ to run exe or exe has some specific support code to work with
gpl-ed dll.

However, imagine simple situation:
1. I write proprietary program with open plugin api. I even make the api
itself public domain. Program works by itself, does not contain any
GPL-ed code.
2. Later someone writes plugin using the api (which is public domain so
is GPL compatible), plugin gets loaded into my software, significantly
affecting its functionality (UI, operations, file formats, whatever).
3. Someone downloads the plugin and loads it into my program

They become effectively larger program, where one part is not GPL (which
is exactly what GPL wants to avoid)
Am I bound by GPL? Certainly not, I did not sign or agree to it in way.
Is the plugin programmer bound by GPL in a way that prohibits writing
GPL plugin to non-GPL program. Not sure, but I don't think so - plugin
is based on API which is public domain
Is end user violating GPL? In the end this is when combining happens. I
don't think so, in my understanding GPL only affects only the
distribution - downloading the plugin means ability to obtain source
code, but does not limit what you do with source as long as you do not
redistribute any derivative works.

I think it does not really matter if plugin programmer and main program
programmer are the same person/organization or not ... it might however
get tricky if GPL plugin is distributed as part of main program.

Unfortunately, GPL faq is extremely vague on such border cases, instead
of simple "yes/no" answers faq is filled with some advocacy talks ...

regards,
Maciej Mróz
Jul 18 '05 #21
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 19:55:01 +0100, Maciej Mróz wrote:
Unfortunately, GPL faq is extremely vague on such border cases, instead
of simple "yes/no" answers faq is filled with some advocacy talks ...


To re-iterate a point I made on a thread last week, nobody really knows
what the GPL says and means on this topic. We can *barely* outline our
ignorance, but even our ignorance is pretty fuzzy.

Copyright-based models can't handle modern computer programs, and the GPL
is still copyright-based. As such, it is hosed.

(For an expansion of that idea, see
http://www.jerf.org/writings/communi...ics/node7.html ; note the
next chapter tries to solve this problem in the context of more
conventional communication, but even with my refinements I'm *still* not
sure how to handle something like the GPL reasonably. I think you'd have
to re-define what the GPL covers almost from scratch; I think it could be
done, but I'm not sure you can fully rationally create an LGPL that
doesn't have critical exceptions.)
Jul 18 '05 #22
> However, imagine simple situation:
1. I write proprietary program with open plugin api. I even make the api
itself public domain. Program works by itself, does not contain any
GPL-ed code.
2. Later someone writes plugin using the api (which is public domain so
is GPL compatible), plugin gets loaded into my software, significantly
affecting its functionality (UI, operations, file formats, whatever).
3. Someone downloads the plugin and loads it into my program
I don't think it is legal to distribute the plugin in binary form.
OTOH it should be legal to distribute it as source code.
Am I bound by GPL? Certainly not, I did not sign or agree to it in way.


correct
--
damjan
Jul 18 '05 #23
Maciej Mróz wrote:
However, imagine simple situation:
1. I write proprietary program with open plugin api. I even make the api
itself public domain. Program works by itself, does not contain any
GPL-ed code.
2. Later someone writes plugin using the api (which is public domain so
is GPL compatible), plugin gets loaded into my software, significantly
affecting its functionality (UI, operations, file formats, whatever).
3. Someone downloads the plugin and loads it into my program


I believe that in this case, the key is *distribution*.

You are not violating the GPL, because you are not distributing a
program that is derived (according to the GPL's definition of derived)
from GPL code.

The plugin author *is* distributing GPL-derived code, but is doing so
under a GPL license. That's fine too.

The end user is now linking (dynamically) GPL code with your
proprietary code. However, he is *not* distributing the linked
assemblage. This is allowed under the GPL; its terms only apply when
distribution takes place.

If the end user is a repackager, and then turns around and distributes
both sets of code together, then that would (potentially) violate GPL
terms. But as long as they're not distributed together, then it's
okay. This should even extend to distributing a basic (proprietary)
plugin and including a document describing where & how to get the
more-featureful GPL replacement plugin. (Distributing both programs
as separate packages on a single installation medium would be a tricky
edge case. I suspect it *could* be done in a GPL-acceptable way, but
one would need to take care about it.)

Of course, this is only my own personal interpretation and opinion --
IANAL, TINLA, YMMV, etc, etc.

Jeff Shannon
Technician/Programmer
Credit International

Jul 18 '05 #24
> However, imagine simple situation:
1. I write proprietary program with open plugin api. I even make the api
itself public domain. Program works by itself, does not contain any
GPL-ed code.


No need to continue. You write something that uses a plugin, Eolas
sues you. Don't have to mind about trolltech
Jul 18 '05 #25
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 09:19:58PM -0200, Gabriel B. wrote:
However, imagine simple situation:
1. I write proprietary program with open plugin api. I even make the api
itself public domain. Program works by itself, does not contain any
GPL-ed code.


No need to continue. You write something that uses a plugin, Eolas
sues you. Don't have to mind about trolltech


not if you live in a sane country.

--
John Lenton (jo**@grulic.org.ar) -- Random fortune:
Preserve wildlife -- pickle a squirrel today!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCCUvGgPqu395ykGsRApXAAJ4yh+M42naJ9xzqDDxZpJ 3zK/cnfgCdERyz
3HiV7iHkOzT+dbsoJ9715Jw=
=QZwp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Jul 18 '05 #26
"Gabriel B." <ga************@gmail.com> writes:
>>Considering the fact that the Qt DLL exist by themselves, that the
>>version used is the one provided by Qt, and that the EXE uses a
>>standard, open way to communicate with it, the above does seem to say
>>this use would be valid.
>>
>>
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq....ereAggregation
>
> "/.../ If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address
> space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.
>
> By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are
> communication mechanisms normally used between two separate
> programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules
> normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the
> communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal
> data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts
> as combined into a larger program."
>
></F>


This is odd. They claim it's a GPL'ed version, but it's a trolltech
license that forces you to release your code under gpl even tought
their's not!

I'm not against a company getting it's share with their product.
that's what motivated them in the first place. but DONT LIE! don't
call it gpl when it's not.

Gpl make it very explicity it deals with the program as a whole, in
the meaning of a executable code. What they're trying to achive here
is that, by adding this paragraph, they will cover the "dll use" under
the gpl.

By that cover-all definition they came up, i can't use Internet
Explorer to see a site hosted with a gpl'ed server! i can't even use a
BSD program to grep a file!


Now the latter isn't true, because the BSD license isn't viral.

On the other hand, you're conflating data and code. If that stands,
then you'd be only be allowed to distribute code written with GNU
Emacs under the GPL, which is goes against long-standing position of
the FSF on GNU Emacs.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
Jul 18 '05 #27
Jeremy Bowers schreef:
Copyright-based models can't handle modern computer programs,


Most countries have computer program specific parts in their copyright
laws...

--
JanC

"Be strict when sending and tolerant when receiving."
RFC 1958 - Architectural Principles of the Internet - section 3.9
Jul 18 '05 #28
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 11:44:10 +0100, Alex Martelli <al*****@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dennis Lee Bieber <wl*****@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
hassle to code, but if your application could dynamically select from
whatever toolkit is available on the machine, you (and I should emphasis
that this is an impersonal/generic "you" I reference) might be able to
argue an exemption from the QT license.


So maybe it's time to resurrect anygui, maybe in a simplified version
which can only interface to, say, PyQt or Tkinter -- 'eithergui' maybe.


'onegui' to rule them all...

--
Carlos Ribeiro
Consultoria em Projetos
blog: http://rascunhosrotos.blogspot.com
blog: http://pythonnotes.blogspot.com
mail: ca********@gmail.com
mail: ca********@yahoo.com
Jul 18 '05 #29
Damjan wrote:
For all you GUI developers, things just got a little more interesting. Trolltech will soon be offering the QT GUI toolkit for Windows under the GPL license. That means that PyQt may become a much more popular option in the near future.
This applies to QT-4 only.
I wonder how much of PyQT is ready for QT4?

Anyway its time for a PyQT based VB-killer [ a GPL one :) ].


Anyway its time for a PyQT based VB-killer [ a GPL one :) ].

I aggree, and for now, it's Eric3, AND it can be compiled & run under
windows, without Cygwin.

Ok, it's not exactly a VB-Killer, but it's the closest thing for now.

VB has it's drawbacks, but can you image the how much more acceptance
python would get, if we had *more* a VB-like designer, for multiple GUI
toolkits, no less?

Jul 18 '05 #30
Alex Martelli wrote:
Dennis Lee Bieber <wl*****@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

hassle to code, but if your application could dynamically select from
whatever toolkit is available on the machine, you (and I should emphasis
that this is an impersonal/generic "you" I reference) might be able to
argue an exemption from the QT license.

So maybe it's time to resurrect anygui, maybe in a simplified version
which can only interface to, say, PyQt or Tkinter -- 'eithergui' maybe.
Alex


Done already: 'Twilight GUI'!

http://students.ceid.upatras.gr/~sxanth/twgui/
However, it's very furstrating working on 4 toolkits in parallel
and because some of the don't have good documentation, I'm doing
other things right now:)
Stelios

Jul 18 '05 #31

You can distribute GPL'ed code in binary form, you just have to make
the sources available as well. And, yes I would use this as a test:
if your program needs gpl-ed code for some of it's functionality, you
have to licence your program according to the GPL - unless you
distribute the GPL'ed parts separately and your program is still
basically functioning without the GPL'ed code.

Now, if you are unsure about these questions and are serious about
writing a program using GPL'ed code, the FSF is probably willing to
help you with your questions.

Besides this, why not putting your code under the GPL?

- Josef

Jul 18 '05 #32
Josef Dalcolmo wrote:
You can distribute GPL'ed code in binary form, you just have to make
the sources available as well. And, yes I would use this as a test:
if your program needs gpl-ed code for some of it's functionality, you
have to licence your program according to the GPL - unless you
distribute the GPL'ed parts separately and your program is still
basically functioning without the GPL'ed code.

Besides this, why not putting your code under the GPL?

GPL is not suitable for all kinds of software. It's nice if you are
sharing code with others, but if you are developing something like a
desktop application that you want to sell for money, using the GPL is a
bad idea.
--

hilsen/regards Max M, Denmark

http://www.mxm.dk/
IT's Mad Science
Jul 18 '05 #33
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 13:57:47 +0100, Josef Dalcolmo wrote:
You can distribute GPL'ed code in binary form, you just have to make the
sources available as well. And, yes I would use this as a test: if your
program needs gpl-ed code for some of it's functionality, you have to
licence your program according to the GPL - unless you distribute the
GPL'ed parts separately and your program is still basically functioning
without the GPL'ed code.


The problem with this is what I've called the "patch hole" in another
context [1]. The problem with this definition is that I can *always*
distribute GPL'ed parts separately and re-combine them arbitrarily upon
execution, and it's not even particularly hard. Write your code with the
GPL'ed code embedded. At the end, before you distribute, extract it and
record the extraction so your program can "rewind it"; you're left with
nothing in your code that is GPLed. Later, the user will go get the GPL
software, and you software "rewinds" the extraction process, and the user
is left with something that is byte-for-byte identical to what you weren't
allowed to distribute by the GPL.... so what good was the GPL?

(Compiling issues can of course be extracted away, which is what a linker
does.)

If this is all the protection that the GPL provides, than it is utterly
useless. But truly nailing down what it means is even harder.

Nobody really knows what the GPL means when it gets down to it; the entire
copyright-based model is broken and unrepairable in a software context.
It's like nailing jello to a wall, you just can't hold it up there.

[1]:http://www.jerf.org/writings/communi...00000000000000
Jul 18 '05 #34
> The problem with this is what I've called the "patch hole" in another
context [1]. The problem with this definition is that I can *always*
distribute GPL'ed parts separately and re-combine them arbitrarily upon
execution, and it's not even particularly hard. Write your code with the
GPL'ed code embedded. At the end, before you distribute, extract it and
record the extraction so your program can "rewind it"; you're left with
nothing in your code that is GPLed. Later, the user will go get the GPL
software, and you software "rewinds" the extraction process, and the user
is left with something that is byte-for-byte identical to what you weren't
allowed to distribute by the GPL.... so what good was the GPL?
What you described is not ok according to the GPL - since you distributed a
binary thats derived from GPL software (and you didn't publish it source
code under the GPL too).
Nobody really knows what the GPL means when it gets down to it;


If you don't know, you should ask the person whose GPL code you are using.

--
damjan
Jul 18 '05 #35
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:24:22 +0100, Damjan wrote:
What you described is not ok according to the GPL - since you distributed
a binary thats derived from GPL software (and you didn't publish it source
code under the GPL too).


No you didn't. You distributed a binary completely free of any GPL code
whatsoever. The *user* combined your binary and the GPL to produce another
binary, which will never be distributed at all.

In copyright terms, which is what the GPL works under since that is the
law it has, what you distributed is completely unrelated to the GPL'ed
program; there's no grounds to call it "derived".

You may need to re-read the sequence more carefully, or I may have gotten
it wrong.
Jul 18 '05 #36
Max M wrote:
GPL is not suitable for all kinds of software. It's nice if you are
sharing code with others, but if you are developing something like a
desktop application that you want to sell for money, using the GPL is a
bad idea.


If you're earning money, why not pay for the libraries that allowed you to
do so?
Be seeing you,
Godoy.
Jul 18 '05 #37
Jeremy Bowers wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:24:22 +0100, Damjan wrote:
What you described is not ok according to the GPL - since you distributed
a binary thats derived from GPL software (and you didn't publish it source
code under the GPL too).

No you didn't. You distributed a binary completely free of any GPL code
whatsoever. The *user* combined your binary and the GPL to produce another
binary, which will never be distributed at all.

In copyright terms, which is what the GPL works under since that is the
law it has, what you distributed is completely unrelated to the GPL'ed
program; there's no grounds to call it "derived".


You might be on firmer ground if it were legally clear exactly what
"derived work" means. Unfortunately, the courts have been skirting
around the issue of defining "derived work" particularly as it pertains
to software. It is entirely possible that a judge would conclude that
your software is a derived work of the GPL software.

Until such matters are unequivocally determined in a court that has
jurisdiction over you, do you really want to open yourself to legal risk
and certain ill-will from the community?

I'll reiterate my strategy: follow the intentions of the copyright owner
unless if I have actual case law on my side.

--
Robert Kern
rk***@ucsd.edu

"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die."
-- Richard Harter
Jul 18 '05 #38
Jorge Luiz Godoy Filho wrote:
Max M wrote:
GPL is not suitable for all kinds of software. It's nice if you are
sharing code with others, but if you are developing something like a
desktop application that you want to sell for money, using the GPL is a
bad idea.
If you're earning money, why not pay for the libraries that allowed you to
do so?

Exactly. But what about those who know how to program but have not a
cent of money? I have never seen a commercial license for a library
which stated that you did not have to pay the license fee until you have
made that much money in sales from the software which you created, in
part, from that library. I would be in favor of such a license, but I
haven't seen anything of the sort.

Be seeing you,
Godoy.

Be seeing you too, lol.

- Arich
Jul 18 '05 #39
Arich Chanachai wrote:
I have never seen a commercial license for a library
which stated that you did not have to pay the license fee until you have
made that much money in sales from the software which you created, in
part, from that library. I would be in favor of such a license, but I
haven't seen anything of the sort.


http://www.fastio.com/licensePlain.html

See their license option for shareware developers.

--
Robert Kern
rk***@ucsd.edu

"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die."
-- Richard Harter
Jul 18 '05 #40
Robert Kern wrote:
Arich Chanachai wrote:
I have never seen a commercial license for a library

which stated that you did not have to pay the license fee until you
have made that much money in sales from the software which you
created, in part, from that library. I would be in favor of such a
license, but I haven't seen anything of the sort.

http://www.fastio.com/licensePlain.html

See their license option for shareware developers.

I stand corrected. Nevertheless, my point stands as this is rare. In
fact, this thread began as a result of Trolltech releasing PyQt for
windows with a GPL license option in addition to the commercial one, and
you will notice that there is no special *deferment provision for
shareware developers *in the specification of commercial license.* *It
would be a grand aid to developers if more companies took this noble and
perhaps more effective approach (versus the gimme-money-now alternative
which is quite dominant). I would argue that such a provision is in the
interests of the toolkit/library developer as this would allow fellows
to adopt their technology (and eventually pay for this adoption),
fellows who otherwise could not.

-Arich
Jul 18 '05 #41
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 14:45:09 -0800, Robert Kern wrote:
Until such matters are unequivocally determined in a court that has
jurisdiction over you, do you really want to open yourself to legal risk
and certain ill-will from the community?


Huh? What are you talking about?

I'm just pointing out the inability of the law to handle it. I have no
intention of doing anything with it, except inasmuch as it makes it
difficult to license my own works since I don't believe any license works.
(But I use the LGPL anyways.)
Jul 18 '05 #42
Jeremy Bowers wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 14:45:09 -0800, Robert Kern wrote:
Until such matters are unequivocally determined in a court that has
jurisdiction over you, do you really want to open yourself to legal risk
and certain ill-will from the community?

Huh? What are you talking about?

I'm just pointing out the inability of the law to handle it. I have no
intention of doing anything with it, except inasmuch as it makes it
difficult to license my own works since I don't believe any license works.
(But I use the LGPL anyways.)


Sorry, it seemed like you were proposing a method to "get around" the
intention of the copyright holder.

--
Robert Kern
rk***@ucsd.edu

"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die."
-- Richard Harter
Jul 18 '05 #43

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

8
by: The CQMMAN | last post by:
Hello, When I try to connect to my Oracle instance on the W2K server that it is installed on, using SQLPLUS (ie, SQLPLUS user/password@instance), I get: ORA-01034: ORACLE not available...
4
by: Jared Thirsk | last post by:
== Introduction to DAF == I am interested in the next generation of approaches to software development. Over the last decades, there has been an obvious shift in how our most complex software...
0
by: Shai Halevi | last post by:
I'm running the following script under PHP 4.4.2 in safe-mode: <?php header('WWW-Authenticate: Basic realm="some realm"'); header("HTTP/1.0 401 Unauthorized"); exit('The realm is supposed to be...
0
by: Morgan Cheng | last post by:
To add HTTP Basic/Digest authentication to HttpWebRequest, I can use NetworkCredential, HttpWebRequest request = (HttpWebRequest)WebRequest.Create("https://api.del.icio.us/v1/tags/ get");...
1
by: VB | last post by:
iTechArt Group - Custom Software Development and Offshore outsourcing Company http://www.itechart.com/ Offshore custom software development company iTechArt - Web site and Content Management...
0
by: gitocoby | last post by:
hi, a simple question: can i use two authentication realms, JDBC Realm and UserDatabase Realm, in one only tomcat server?
1
by: Octaclot | last post by:
Hi, this is my first post, i want to allow my jsp pages to access resources but prevent a user from accessing the same files. Example a jsp header page loads and gets it's images from...
5
by: Blessy | last post by:
Before restarting my server i was able to access my local database.When I restarted the server it is giving the following error. ORA- 01034 : ORACLE not available ORA-27101 : shared memory...
0
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 6 Mar 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM). In this month's session, we are pleased to welcome back...
1
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 6 Mar 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM). In this month's session, we are pleased to welcome back...
0
by: Vimpel783 | last post by:
Hello! Guys, I found this code on the Internet, but I need to modify it a little. It works well, the problem is this: Data is sent from only one cell, in this case B5, but it is necessary that data...
0
by: jfyes | last post by:
As a hardware engineer, after seeing that CEIWEI recently released a new tool for Modbus RTU Over TCP/UDP filtering and monitoring, I actively went to its official website to take a look. It turned...
0
by: ArrayDB | last post by:
The error message I've encountered is; ERROR:root:Error generating model response: exception: access violation writing 0x0000000000005140, which seems to be indicative of an access violation...
0
by: CloudSolutions | last post by:
Introduction: For many beginners and individual users, requiring a credit card and email registration may pose a barrier when starting to use cloud servers. However, some cloud server providers now...
0
by: Defcon1945 | last post by:
I'm trying to learn Python using Pycharm but import shutil doesn't work
0
by: Shællîpôpï 09 | last post by:
If u are using a keypad phone, how do u turn on JavaScript, to access features like WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram....
0
by: Faith0G | last post by:
I am starting a new it consulting business and it's been a while since I setup a new website. Is wordpress still the best web based software for hosting a 5 page website? The webpages will be...

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.