On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Beni Cherniavsky wrote:
> Shlomi Fish wrote on 2003-11-03:
>
> > Now, for the choice of language:
> >
> > Perl - my favourite language (;-)). There's more than one way to do it.
> > Very flexible. A lot of different ways to accomplish the same thing. Some
> > people love it. S
Shlomi Fish wrote on 2003-11-03:
> Now, for the choice of language:
>
> Perl - my favourite language (;-)). There's more than one way to do it.
> Very flexible. A lot of different ways to accomplish the same thing. Some
> people love it. Some people hate it. You can't know until you've tried.
>
>
>> > Python,perl,tcl/tk,qt,gtk+
Are you looking for a language or a toolkit ?
You have FLTK, vxWindows and GLUI (over OpenGL).
This e-mail message has been sent by Elbit Systems Ltd.
and is for the use of the intended recipients only.
The message may contain privileged or confidenti
On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 09:10, Oron Peled wrote:
> On Thursday 06 November 2003 01:14, Micha Feigin wrote:
> > From you are saying you can't use any GPL toolkit to build commercial
> > software.
>
> You seem to confuse commercial with proprietary. A company may
> charge money for GPL derived program
On Wed, 2003-11-05 at 21:40, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Micha Feigin wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 11:03, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> > > On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Ely Levy wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, Diego I
>>The fact that you got your hands on a packaged software product does not
>>mean you can use it.
>>
> Sure it does. That's what the "First sale doctrine" means. Once I sold
> you a piece of software, I cannot tell you what to do, and what not to
> do, with it.
>
>> if that were the case, then If
"Oded Arbel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Of course there is ! Using the software implies copying - you copy it into
> your harddisk and then you copy it into your computer's dynamic memory
> where it can be run.
GPL specifically says,
"The act of running the Program is not restricted"
--
Ol
Oded Arbel wrote:
Oded Arbel wrote:
While taking it a bit to the extreme (and I don't think anybody would try
to enforce it) with our hypothetic Winw, the user who tries to run Win32
application might be considered infringing on the Winw GPL license just
by
using it. I guess this is one
> Oded Arbel wrote:
>>While taking it a bit to the extreme (and I don't think anybody would try
>>to enforce it) with our hypothetic Winw, the user who tries to run Win32
>>application might be considered infringing on the Winw GPL license just
>> by
>>using it. I guess this is one of the reasons
Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
Shachar,
I guess you are still a bit wrong about GPL, but of course IANAL.
IMHO, it's not the black or white world of it's a derived work or
not. Random notes:
* LGPL is GPL compatible, but it does not mean you if you are
not the author of an LGPLed piece of code, you ar
Shachar,
I guess you are still a bit wrong about GPL, but of course IANAL.
IMHO, it's not the black or white world of it's a derived work or
not. Random notes:
* LGPL is GPL compatible, but it does not mean you if you are
not the author of an LGPLed piece of code, you are allowed to
make a de
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Micha Feigin wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 11:03, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> > On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Ely Levy wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, Diego Iastrubni wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Here is my opinion: any one of t
Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
On Thursday 06 November 2003 10:46, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Oron Peled wrote:
Its yet to stand up in court though.
What should stand up in court? The "right" to distribute software
against its license terms? You must be drinking.
The only thing a court may n
Oded Arbel wrote:
I certainly agree with you that in this case, the onus of making the
code open does not lie with its developers (who have no knowledge of
and have never used WINE), but rather with the user who did use WINE,
which is a thorny mess I have no idea how to solve ;-)
No, this
>>I certainly agree with you that in this case, the onus of making the
>>code open does not lie with its developers (who have no knowledge of
>>and have never used WINE), but rather with the user who did use WINE,
>>which is a thorny mess I have no idea how to solve ;-)
>>
>>
>>
> No, this is absu
On Thursday 06 November 2003 10:46, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> Oron Peled wrote:
> >>Its yet to stand up in court though.
> >
> >What should stand up in court? The "right" to distribute software
> >against its license terms? You must be drinking.
> >
> >The only thing a court may need to decide is if
As it is clear that I have been misunderstood, I'll try to explain again.
Wine is LGPL. As such, it is not covered by this discussion.
Let's then take the wine code, and fork it. We'll call the new program
"Winw", for "Winw is not Wine". Winw is licensed under the GPL (as the
GPL is LGPL compat
Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oron Peled wrote:
>
> >>Its yet to stand up in court though.
> >>
>
> >
> >What should stand up in court? The "right" to distribute software
> >against its license terms? You must be drinking.
> >
> >The only thing a court may need to decide is if li
On Thursday 06 November 2003 10:46, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> Let's take an example. Suppose Wine is distributed under the GPL (It's
> LGPL, but for the sake of discussion).
It is LGPL precisely to prevent the legal problems of linking against GPL
code (just like glibc is LGPL'ed for the same reas
> Oron Peled wrote:
>
>>>Its yet to stand up in court though.
>>>
> Merely linking with a library does not make your software derived work
> of that company! How can that be?
>
> Let's take an example. Suppose Wine is distributed under the GPL (It's
> LGPL, but for the sake of discussion). Accordi
On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> Oron Peled wrote:
>
> >>Its yet to stand up in court though.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >What should stand up in court? The "right" to distribute software
> >against its license terms? You must be drinking.
> >
> >The only thing a court may need to decide is if li
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 10:46:35AM +0200, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> >The only thing a court may need to decide is if linking a library
> >makes your software a derived work. As I said before, this case
> >looks clear enough to most people that even infringing companies
> >prefer to release code and
Oron Peled wrote:
Its yet to stand up in court though.
What should stand up in court? The "right" to distribute software
against its license terms? You must be drinking.
The only thing a court may need to decide is if linking a library
makes your software a derived work. As I said before, thi
On Thursday 06 November 2003 01:14, Micha Feigin wrote:
> From you are saying you can't use any GPL toolkit to build commercial
> software.
You seem to confuse commercial with proprietary. A company may
charge money for GPL derived programs but if they distribute them
they must provide access to t
On Wed, 2003-11-05 at 22:02, Oron Peled wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 November 2003 20:39, Micha Feigin wrote:
> > Although I believe that if you use dynamic linking you can still mix GPL
> > and closed source (as you are not actually including the source in you
> > program).
>
> The type of linking is
On Wednesday 05 November 2003 20:39, Micha Feigin wrote:
> Although I believe that if you use dynamic linking you can still mix GPL
> and closed source (as you are not actually including the source in you
> program).
The type of linking is irrelevant, the determining factor is if it's derived
work
On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 11:03, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Shlomi Fish wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Ely Levy wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, Diego Iastrubni wrote:
> > >
> > > > Here is my opinion: any one of this 3 sounds cool. I put here only the
> > > > downsides o
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Shlomi Fish wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Ely Levy wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, Diego Iastrubni wrote:
> > >
> > > > Here is my opinion: any one of this 3 sounds cool. I put here only the
> > > > downsides of each ap
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 04:03:02AM -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Shlomi Fish wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Ely Levy wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, Diego Iastrubni wrote:
> > >
> > > > Here is my opinion: any one of this 3 sounds cool. I put here only the
> > >
Mackall on OFTC.net #offtopic.
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 12:22:50 +0200 (IST)
From: Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Oded Arbel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GUI language for beginners
Hi!
Did you mean to send this E-mail to the list?
On Tue
> Well it's a bit weird,
> for once I remember it was fully GPLed few month ago
> now they seem to change it so although there is GPLed
> version of QT for windows only academic people can download it
> but since it's fully GPLed I don't see how they how they can stop
> anyone who isn't academic fr
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 07:07:05PM -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
>>
>> Was waiting for someone else to mention that, but no one did.
>> Perhaps PyGTK (Python + GTK bindings) is the best to go these
>> days. There are thousands of small and large examples out there
>> to copy from ;-). Ruby + GT
btw if you want to even get more confuzed
http://www.trolltech.com/download/index.html
notice the educational version is under the GPL section
if you look on the licence part of the page it would tell you
it's under educational license
so I guess their webpage is a bit not updated to one side
(eith
> On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, Diego Iastrubni wrote:
>
>> Here is my opinion: any one of this 3 sounds cool. I put here only the
>> downsides of each approach.
>>
>> gtk:
>> * not object oriented (looks un-natural to build gui's in no oop
>> language)
>
> I beg your pardon? Gtk+ is Object-Oriented. And you
Well it's a bit weird,
for once I remember it was fully GPLed few month ago
now they seem to change it so although there is GPLed
version of QT for windows only academic people can download it
but since it's fully GPLed I don't see how they how they can stop
anyone who isn't academic from copying i
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Ely Levy wrote:
>
> >
> > On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, Diego Iastrubni wrote:
> >
> > > Here is my opinion: any one of this 3 sounds cool. I put here only the
> > > downsides of each approach.
> > >
> > > gtk:
> > > * not object oriented (looks u
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Ely Levy wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, Diego Iastrubni wrote:
>
> > Here is my opinion: any one of this 3 sounds cool. I put here only the
> > downsides of each approach.
> >
> > gtk:
> > * not object oriented (looks un-natural to build gui's in no oop language)
> > * looks fu
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, Diego Iastrubni wrote:
> Here is my opinion: any one of this 3 sounds cool. I put here only the
> downsides of each approach.
>
> gtk:
> * not object oriented (looks un-natural to build gui's in no oop language)
> * looks funkey on win32
>
> qt:
> * not free in win32
Actually
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, Diego Iastrubni wrote:
> Here is my opinion: any one of this 3 sounds cool. I put here only the
> downsides of each approach.
>
> gtk:
> * not object oriented (looks un-natural to build gui's in no oop language)
I beg your pardon? Gtk+ is Object-Oriented. And you can do OOP in
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> Hi Aviad,
>
> I've decided that a lot of voices make for a more interesting
> conversation. I'm therefor forwarding your email to a mailing list I
> read (and occasionally even write to). I'm sure the good people here
> will have plenty to say. You may
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 07:07:05PM -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
>
> Was waiting for someone else to mention that, but no one did.
> Perhaps PyGTK (Python + GTK bindings) is the best to go these
> days. There are thousands of small and large examples out there
> to copy from ;-). Ruby + GTK seem
Was waiting for someone else to mention that, but no one did.
Perhaps PyGTK (Python + GTK bindings) is the best to go these
days. There are thousands of small and large examples out there
to copy from ;-). Ruby + GTK seems good too, but Ruby is not a
language I bother myself learning, when I can
Kylix rulez ! :-)))
- Original Message -
From: "Shachar Shemesh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Linux-IL mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "aviad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 11:18 PM
Subject: GUI language for beginne
Quoth Ariel Biener:
> On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, Diego Iastrubni wrote:
>
> Heh, you programmers, never pragmatical, always aiming at the overkill.
Note, also, that these are NOT languages ;-)...
> > gtk:
> > * not object oriented (looks un-natural to build gui's in no oop language)
> > * looks funkey
aviad wrote:
> i wonder if you could help me choose between
> several languages to develop gui based application
> i got lost between :
> Python,perl,tcl/tk,qt,gtk+
> i need a language that will help me to develop
> a small gui that will communicate with a non gui linux
> program (send parameters v
Quoth Shachar Shemesh:
> aviad wrote:
>
> >Python,perl,tcl/tk,qt,gtk+
SNOBOL/TK!
--
---OFCNL
This is MY list. This list belongs to ME! I will flame anyone I want.
Official Flamer/Cabal NON-Leader [EMAIL PROTECTED]
==
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003, Ariel Biener wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
>
> > A good begginer's GUI tool for a univ. project. Which would be best?
>
> tcl/tk probably.
Ugghh. Tcl/Tk's sorta dying, IMHO...
How about Ruby? Fully OO. Now with Gui hooks (none of which I've
us
you can always claim i was aiming for language... :)
ביום ראשון, 2 בנובמבר 2003, 23:45, נכתב על ידי Ariel Biener:
> On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, Diego Iastrubni wrote:
>
>
> Heh, you programmers, never pragmatical, always aiming at the overkill.
>
> --Ariel
>
> > Here is my opinion: any one of this 3 sounds
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, Diego Iastrubni wrote:
Heh, you programmers, never pragmatical, always aiming at the overkill.
--Ariel
> Here is my opinion: any one of this 3 sounds cool. I put here only the
> downsides of each approach.
>
> gtk:
> * not object oriented (looks un-natural to build gui's in
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> A good begginer's GUI tool for a univ. project. Which would be best?
tcl/tk probably.
--Ariel
>
>Shachar
>
> aviad wrote:
>
> > i wonder if you could help me choose between
> > several languages to develop gui based application
> > i gotlo
Here is my opinion: any one of this 3 sounds cool. I put here only the
downsides of each approach.
gtk:
* not object oriented (looks un-natural to build gui's in no oop language)
* looks funkey on win32
qt:
* not free in win32
* does not compile with mingw or friends on win32
java:
* funky loo
Hi Aviad,
I've decided that a lot of voices make for a more interesting
conversation. I'm therefor forwarding your email to a mailing list I
read (and occasionally even write to). I'm sure the good people here
will have plenty to say. You may want to clarify what "sending
parameters" mean, tho
52 matches
Mail list logo
