PureBasic Forums - English

Posted: **Wed Jul 06, 2005 10:32 pm**

Thanks for the gift. Hopefully this is just the beginning.

Is it possible to have this thread turned into a sticky?

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2005 1:21 am**

I have some misgivings about the LGPL license, it seems that statically linking your program with the LGPL’d lib is interpreted as derivative work.

GNU LESSER GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE wrote: 5. A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the
Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or
linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a
work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and
therefore falls outside the scope of this License.

However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library
creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it
contains portions of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the
library". The executable is therefore covered by this License.
Section 6 states terms for distribution of such executables.

..............
..............

6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or
link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a
work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work
under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit
modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse
engineering for debugging such modifications.

You must give prominent notice with each copy of the work that the
Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by
this License. You must supply a copy of this License. If the work
during execution displays copyright notices, you must include the
copyright notice for the Library among them, as well as a reference
directing the user to the copy of this License. Also, you must do one
of these things:

a) Accompany the work with the complete corresponding
machine-readable source code for the Library including whatever
changes were used in the work (which must be distributed under
Sections 1 and 2 above); and, if the work is an executable linked
with the Library, with the complete machine-readable "work that
uses the Library", as object code and/or source code, so that the
user can modify the Library and then relink to produce a modified
executable containing the modified Library. (It is understood
that the user who changes the contents of definitions files in the
Library will not necessarily be able to recompile the application
to use the modified definitions.)

b) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the
Library. A suitable mechanism is one that (1) uses at run time a
copy of the library already present on the user's computer system,
rather than copying library functions into the executable, and (2)
will operate properly with a modified version of the library, if
the user installs one, as long as the modified version is
interface-compatible with the version that the work was made with.

c) Accompany the work with a written offer, valid for at
least three years, to give the same user the materials
specified in Subsection 6a, above, for a charge no more
than the cost of performing this distribution.

d) If distribution of the work is made by offering access to copy
from a designated place, offer equivalent access to copy the above
specified materials from the same place.

e) Verify that the user has already received a copy of these
materials or that you have already sent this user a copy.

For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the
Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for
reproducing the executable from it. However, as a special exception,
the materials to be distributed need not include anything that is
normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major
components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on
which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies
the executable.

may I suggest that you add an Addendum as presented here http://www.fox-toolkit.org/license.html

FOX Toolkit Library License Addendum. wrote:
ADDENDUM TO LICENSE
March 2003

Copyright (C) 2002,2005 Jeroen van der Zijp.

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license addendum document, but changing it is not allowed.

FOX Toolkit Library License Addendum.

1. License. The FOX Toolkit Library ("The Library") is licensed under GNU
Lesser General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation,
version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

2. Relinking Exemption. You may distribute a combined work using a
statically linked, unmodified copy of the FOX Library under terms of your
choice, without the relinking requirement stipulated under the GNU Lesser
Public License, subject to the following conditions:

a. This static relinking exemption covers only the FOX Toolkit Library.
Other libraries which the FOX Library may need are covered by their own
respective licenses.

b. Modification of the configure scripts, makefiles, or installation
tools of the FOX Library to support a specific platform does not
constitute creating a modified copy based on the FOX Library.

c. Programs or binaries statically linked with the FOX Library must be
identified as such by including, in the Documentation or by other means
(for example in the About Box or Online Help), the following statement:

"This software uses the FOX Toolkit Library (http://www.fox-toolkit.org)."

d. Subclassing from Objects or Widgets supplied by the Library involves
no modifications to the source code of the Library itself, and does not
constitute creating a modified copy based on the Library.

3. If you do not accept or are unable to meet the conditions under (2), you
may continue to distribute the combined work under the original GNU Lesser
General Public License.

END OF ADDENDUM

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2005 5:47 am**

The current version is already released under LGPL. The only way to change the license is to release a newer version of the library under the new license, but that still renders the current version under lgpl? Actually Rings know all about this stuff

((passes the torch to Rings))

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2005 7:28 am**

i hate arguing and discussing these license questions.
Totaly useless.
For me its clear what you can do with the libs.
Without staticaly linking the libs are useless and i can't
use them in my own Appz.
As the author of the libs (and the others too) i can say that
staticaly linking is not violated against our interpretation of the
license.
Better discuss all those fine libs instead of wasting time in license
arguing:)

@Droopy: Yes, the HelpFiles with F1 are completly missing,
thats a problem with Tailbite (Hey ElChoni, any chance to put an extra Helpfile(The name is different than the lib-name) in the Commandline
while calling Tailbite? )

@Droopy: Now you are know why i was negating your question
to include the NT-Services(functions) in your lib

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2005 10:07 am**

Well, great collection of libs. Thanks a lot 4 sharing. The only drawback is the missing support for the future

But there is hope:
It seems that Droopy is very interested (:D

) to enhance the service-lib with return values (thus the error handling could be done in the main code (RemoveService(..), InstallService(..), ... )

Maybe there is even a way to distinguish if a program is started as service or not ... (if (Service(..)) --> return value should be the handle to the service process, null otherwise)

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2005 10:47 am**

well, there is still the search for a maintainer.....

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2005 7:12 pm**

Rings wrote:well, there is still the search for a maintainer.....

Uhm remi_meier and I asked ourself if there is anyone who can program C, ASM, PB and speak in french, german and english. So there should be a group of maintainers. They shouldn't be like the team-n00bs: "Ohh a team, great, I'll get in." 1 day later the team is broken. They should already have been members of a team with success.

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2005 7:39 pm**

i agree, also a team can maintain it

but who need french if you can code in asm,c and pb

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2005 9:33 pm**

Rings wrote:but who need french if you can code in asm,c and pb

Maintainers might just "happen". A change is needed and someone releases it. Mind you, I suppose it could lead to multiple versions. But is that bad as long as source is always released as well?

(I am assuming that in the spirit of things, it is expected the source is always released with new versions of the libs themselves.)

Posted: **Fri Jul 08, 2005 10:19 pm**

Thx to all the creators for shared !

Posted: **Sun Jul 17, 2005 1:04 pm**

Sorry to be answering late, but i just wanted to say its nice of you to release these sources.

i just had 3 weeks without internet

i was on vacation 3 weeks in south africa

well its a nice country however since im white one spit on our car as we were driving in a dark part of a city :S but otherwise all the people down there were nice enough.

ow and on a zulu dance show the young ladies danced with just a cloth over their boobs eh and who was sitting on the side and could watch it all? eh just something for you rings

{Tits&beer}

Posted: **Sun Jul 17, 2005 1:15 pm**

Heya, glad you enjoyed your trip and welcome back. SA is v. nice and one day perhaps all the past will be forgotten and people can enjoy where they live rather than focus on old hurts.

Posted: **Sun Jul 17, 2005 2:27 pm**

hi!
true. most of them were nice. however some walked around with golf clubs and guns.
also i saw a white guy fight a black guard because he didnt want the guard to check if he had bought what he took out of the store.

however most of the black people were rather nice talking with but many of the white we met seemed to have something to say about them like "they smell" and such stuff.. but also some non-racist white people.
but they told us to drive around with the car-lock on so they couldnt hijack our car

i hope that old appartheid stuff will be forgotten by both parts...

Posted: **Sun Jul 17, 2005 3:01 pm**

thefool wrote:but they told us to drive around with the car-lock on so they couldnt hijack our car

Thats good advice. Had a business meeting there a couple of years back and the other party didn't show. Next day heard he & wife were dead when resisting carjackers.

Anyhow, glad you enjoyed your trip and sorry for hijacking this thread.

Posted: **Sun Jul 17, 2005 6:25 pm**

ow.. yeah i heard about a hijacker shooting a little girl because the doors was locked! its insane!!

we got the story by another white man. his aunt was a childkeeper and one day she had her daughter holding a small baby when delivering the baby at home. then a hijacker came and tried to get it, but he couldnt. then he shot after the baby but luckily the aunt pressed the speeder so he missed but very close..

PureBasic Forums - English

PBOSL 1.0 (OpenSource Library-Collection)