]ANN[ Vellum 0.16: Lots Of Documentation and Watching

[Zed A. Shaw]

Hi Everyone,

Just putting out an announcement that I've released a new version of
Vellum numbered 0.16. This version should be ready for people to use
as not much of the internal structure has changed in a great many
commits and it contains all the latest bug fixes.

It also has the beginning of an extensive PDF document describing how
to use it. This is still an in-progress work, so it has grammar
mistakes and spelling errors, but it does show off some nice
documentation wizardy I'm experimenting with in LaTeX.

Finally there's a new "watch" feature which is very handy described
further down. It simply watches a file and reruns your targets when
the file changes.
GETTING IT

Honestly, the easiest way is just:

sudo easy_install zapps vellum

If you want to build the book yourself and have all of TeX Live
installed then you'd also need:

sudo easy_install pygments idiopidae

You can also hit the http://launchpad.net/vellum/ page to grab source
tarballs and other goodies.
THE BOOK OF VELLUM

You can grab the most recent draft of the book at:

http://zedshaw.com/projects/vellum/manual-final.pdf

Any corrections or comments on how it is written are more than
welcome. Suggestions for improving the TeX are also helpful since I'm
not a TeX expert yet.

The software I'm using to build that book is fully available to anyone
looking to document their projects. You can grab Idiopidae, Pygments,
and TeX from the interwebs. You can then grab the whole source and all
the LaTeX goodness from my Bazaar repository:

bzr pull http://zedshaw.com/repository/vellum/

Look in the doc/ directory for all the fun. You'll notice that
the .tex files have *no* code in them, and that it's all imported by
Idiopidae. Look at the doc/book.vel file to see how it's all merged
and massaged together, and you can reuse this book.vel file to start
your own books.
CRAZY NICE WATCH FEATURE

I added a feature to Vellum that is one of those "duh" features. You
can tell Vellum to watch a file, and if it changes Vellum will rerun
some targets. When I work on the manual.tex file, I do this:

vellum -w doc/manual.tex book.draft book.view

It just keeps looping, and if you hit CTRL-C you can force a build with
ENTER or quit with CTRL-C. Then I use the evince PDF viewer under
linux, which has similar Vim key bindings and reloads the PDF when it
changes.

The net effect of this is, whenever I change my manual.tex file, Vellum
runs my build for the manual and evince redisplays it for me to see.

You could use this simple feature to also continually run unit tests
whenever a file changes that you are working on.

GPLv3?

How do people feel about Vellum's GPLv3 status? It actually doesn't
impact anyone unless you embed Vellum into a project/product or you
create commands (which you should give back anyway). Even then if you
never release your build to your users then you don't need to release
the commands.

However, I'm curious to get other people's thoughts.

Thanks a bunch folks.

--
Zed A. Shaw
- Hate: http://savingtheinternetwithhate.com/
- Good: http://www.zedshaw.com/
- Evil: http://yearofevil.com/

[Ben Finney]

"Zed A. Shaw" <ze*****@zedshaw.comwrites:

Just putting out an announcement that I've released a new version of
Vellum numbered 0.16.

When announcing new versions of Foo software, please always include
(near the top) a "What is Foo?" or "About Foo" section, so that people
know what you're talking about and why it's relevant for the forum.

GPLv3?

How do people feel about Vellum's GPLv3 status?

The GPLv3 is not without problems, but it's a decent copyleft license.
I'm happy to see more software under the GPLv3 rather than licenses
less rigorous about ensuring the software remains free, so thankyou.

--
\ “A free press is one where it’s okay to state the |
`\ conclusion you’re led to by the evidence.� —Bill Moyers |
_o__) |
Ben Finney

[Michele Simionato]

On Apr 29, 9:51 am, "Zed A. Shaw" <[e-mail]:

However, I'm curious to get other people's thoughts.

For what concerns the license, I would say that GPL3 is fine:
for a tool basically any kind of license is fine,
since the tool is external to the code, so this is a minor point.
I am curious about two other things, though, perhaps answered in the
book but I had no time to read it all. First question: are you saying
that vellum does NOT keep track of already built files and recompile
everything each time, i.e. it is really in a different ballpark from
make and similar build tools?
Second question: what about docutils? A Pythonista would expect a
documentation tool to use reST and I am sure plenty of us out
there have articles/documents (even books) in reST and would be
interested in building them. OTOH I would not be interested in
learning yet another lightweight markup language or to go back to TeX.
Is the Vellum book written in reST?
Michele Simionato

[Istvan Albert]

On Apr 29, 3:51 am, "Zed A. Shaw" <[e-mail]:

You can grab the most recent draft of the book at:

http://zedshaw.com/projects/vellum/manual-final.pdf

However, I'm curious to get other people's thoughts.

IMO if you would refrain from using swear words in the manual it would
help broadening its reach and acceptance.

i.

[python]

Zed,

Read the first 2 chapters of your book and love it! Fun to read - I like
your writing style. I agreed with most of your premises/philosophies -
very refreshing.

I didn't find your language offensive but you might consider toning down
your review of the Awesome Window Manager :)

When do you plan on posting your next update?

Malcolm

[Ville M. Vainio]

"Zed A. Shaw" <ze*****@zedshaw.comwrites:

GPLv3?

How do people feel about Vellum's GPLv3 status? It actually doesn't
impact anyone unless you embed Vellum into a project/product or you

Yeah, but it effectively prevents people from embedding it into their
apps that wish to remain BSD/MIT clean.

It's not likely that some evil corporation is going to hijack Vellum
source code as a basis of their next evil app (which is basically what
GPL is used to prevent) any time soon, so I don't really see a
particular reason for such a developer-oriented tool to be released
under GPL.

Basically, avoiding GPL maximizes the brainshare that a small-ish tool
is going to attract, and many (including myself, FWIW) view GPL as a
big turn-off when I consider spending some time to familiarize myself
with a tool, or recommending it to someone else.

[Ville M. Vainio]

py****@bdurham.com writes:

I didn't find your language offensive but you might consider toning down
your review of the Awesome Window Manager :)

Nah - keep up the bad attitude. Your (Zed) blog/articles are one of
the few things on the programmosphere that actually make me laugh
audibly.

[Paul Boddie]

On 5 Mai, 20:26, [e-mail] (Ville M. Vainio) wrote:

>
Basically, avoiding GPL maximizes the brainshare that a small-ish tool
is going to attract, and many (including myself, FWIW) view GPL as a
big turn-off when I consider spending some time to familiarize myself
with a tool, or recommending it to someone else.

I'd like to cast a vote for the opposing camp: I'm probably more
likely to look at GPL-licensed code, although I recognise that I have
the benefit of not having anyone superior to me wanting to release
proprietary software. Applications and tools are ideal candidates for
GPL-licensing, although I also recognise that someone might want to
adapt the code for a library, and that they might not feel comfortable
with the copyleft aspects of the resulting licence on that library.

Anyway, I'm just confirming that I'm clearly not one of the "many"
described above. A lot of my own work is licensed under the GPL or
LGPL, and while I'd be the first to admit that not much of what I've
written is wildly popular, I think the reasons for not using it purely
because of the licences are typically overstated.

Paul

[Ville M. Vainio]

Paul Boddie <pa**@boddie.org.ukwrites:

Anyway, I'm just confirming that I'm clearly not one of the "many"
described above. A lot of my own work is licensed under the GPL or

I guess it's safe to assume that you are not opposed to using code
based on more liberal license, right? :-)

My point is: GPL is a reason to reject a tool for some, but MIT/BSD
never is. Ultimately, of course, it's up to the preferences of the
author but if the idea is to maximize the popularity, GPL is a worse
bet.

[Paul Boddie]

On 5 Mai, 23:57, [e-mail] (Ville M. Vainio) wrote:

Paul Boddie <[e-mail]:

Anyway, I'm just confirming that I'm clearly not one of the "many"
described above. A lot of my own work is licensed under the GPL or

I guess it's safe to assume that you are not opposed to using code
based on more liberal license, right? :-)

As long as it's a GPL-compatible licence. ;-)

My point is: GPL is a reason to reject a tool for some, but MIT/BSD
never is. Ultimately, of course, it's up to the preferences of the
author but if the idea is to maximize the popularity, GPL is a worse
bet.

I know you were talking about small tools, but since we're being
jocular, I still can't resist the obligatory "tell it to Linus
Torvalds" remark. :-)

Paul

P.S. I've actually released at least one work derived from a
permissively licensed work under the LGPL (and I did ask the original
author if he had any problems with that, out of politeness), mostly
because I didn't object to people building applications under a wider
range of licences, but I did want end-users to get the benefit of the
library source code, including any modifications.

[Carl Banks]

On Apr 29, 3:51 am, "Zed A. Shaw" <[e-mail]:

GPLv3?

How do people feel about Vellum's GPLv3 status?

It's going to scare away some folks.

Using LGPL will almost certainly scare away fewer. People who don't
like GPL are usually concerned about its viral aspects moreso than the
requirement to contribute back released changes.

Carl Banks

[hdante]

On May 5, 3:26*pm, [e-mail] (Ville M. Vainio) wrote:

"Zed A. Shaw" <[e-mail]:

GPLv3?

How do people feel about Vellum's GPLv3 status? *It actually doesn't
impact anyone unless you embed Vellum into a project/product or you

Yeah, but it effectively prevents people from embedding it into their
apps that wish to remain BSD/MIT clean.

That's not a good argument. "GPL has the problem that if people don't
want to use GPL, then they can't use the GPL'd code."

GPL can mix with other free software licenses, so people who write
BSD code and do not wish to remain BSD clean are free to use GPL'd
code. That's the important point.

>
It's not likely that some evil corporation is going to hijack Vellum
source code as a basis of their next evil app (which is basically what
GPL is used to prevent) any time soon, so I don't really see a
particular reason for such a developer-oriented tool to be released
under GPL.

Viral licenses only serve that purpose ("protecting from evil
corporations"). If he licensed Vellum with GPL in the first place,
he's worried about that.

>
Basically, avoiding GPL maximizes the brainshare that a small-ish tool

True, but you may never ever see the brilliant result of that
brainshare work. Thus, for the author, your sentence is false.

is going to attract, and many (including myself, FWIW) view GPL as a

How many ?

big turn-off when I consider spending some time to familiarize myself
with a tool, or recommending it to someone else.

[Paul Rubin]

vi******@gmail.com (Ville M. Vainio) writes:

if the idea is to maximize the popularity, GPL is a worse bet.

That is not a valid inference. Look at the popularity of Linux vs
BSD, for example.

[Paul Rubin]

"Zed A. Shaw" <ze*****@zedshaw.comwrites:

How do people feel about Vellum's GPLv3 status?

I'm certainly in favor of it, though I didn't notice this question
until it spawned its own thread, and I'm not currently a Vellum
user or developer, so maybe my view shouldn't count for much.

[Ville Vainio]

On May 6, 11:27 pm, hdante <[e-mail]:

GPL can mix with other free software licenses, so people who write
BSD code and do not wish to remain BSD clean are free to use GPL'd
code. That's the important point.

No, it can't. It can only mix through aggregation, i.e. you can ship a
GPL'd "plugin" with BSD code as long as you don't import the plugin
directly.

Here's a real life example from ipython:

- Core IPython is BSD clean, and we intend to leave it that way
- If we imported a gpl'd module in some core ipython component, the
core component would be gpl (or something equally restrictive) as
well, through viral nature of the license
- Now, if you want a BSD-clean version of ipython (say, to embed it in
a commercial program - with which I have absolutely *no* problem, and
can only see good things coming from it), you would have to gleam out
all the uses of that module from the source code. Not very fun, esp.
if it's something important
- There is a GPL'd module in "extensions" folder of IPython, ipy_bzr
(that is because of bzrlib). It's never imported anywhere in ipython
source code, but the user can import it in ipy_user_conf.py. This
"contaminates" the config file and subsequently ipython (because it's
imported into python interpreter ipython is running on), but luckily
the user can opt out from importing it if he wishes to remain BSD
clean. Or he can delete the file altogether if he wishes.

Without GPL, none of this hair-splitting is necessary.

I guess I could have gone the Carl Banks route and just say "It scares
away some people". Consider my replies here an elaborate way of saying
the very same thing.