- Forum
- Lounge
- Fee Beer as in Freedom
- Page 2
Fee Beer as in Freedom
Even if it is better than PS, doesn't mean its UI can't use some improvement.
I needed to once do elementary cut and paste job on images for my gf. After half an hour of trying to make it work in GIMP (having zero prior experience) I gave up, she had already done it in her pirated copy of powerpoint.
I needed to once do elementary cut and paste job on images for my gf. After half an hour of trying to make it work in GIMP (having zero prior experience) I gave up, she had already done it in her pirated copy of powerpoint.
I needed to shuffle three strips from an image. For that purpose I was thinking, cut the first strip out, put it to the side, then arrange the other two, and put finally the starting strip in place.
I don't remember exactly what stopped me from doing that in GIMP, but somehow it was completely counterintuitive - maybe because my intuition has been built through using programs with advanced GUI such as MS paint.
I don't remember exactly what stopped me from doing that in GIMP, but somehow it was completely counterintuitive - maybe because my intuition has been built through using programs with advanced GUI such as MS paint.
I like having several windows. Please tell me they didn't make it into one window?
That's the first time I've ever seen you use a "smiley". You really have gone insane...
@tition,
Make a new window with (default) ^N...
| :-) |
That's the first time I've ever seen you use a "smiley". You really have gone insane...
@tition,
Make a new window with (default) ^N...
Last edited on
I literally spent 45 minutes looking through the GPL FAQs and I HATE (with a passion) how everything is worded.
Could I just get a clear, concise answer on these questions:
May I use gcc to compile MY source code without releasing my source?
May I sell my compiled program (which I wrote from scratch using standard c++ and STL) without releasing the source?
I mostly program as a hobby but if the need ever arised where I wanted to sell something I made I would like to know before I had the potential of getting sued (don't know how this works either).
Could I just get a clear, concise answer on these questions:
May I use gcc to compile MY source code without releasing my source?
May I sell my compiled program (which I wrote from scratch using standard c++ and STL) without releasing the source?
I mostly program as a hobby but if the need ever arised where I wanted to sell something I made I would like to know before I had the potential of getting sued (don't know how this works either).
Last edited on
I'm with helios on the GIMP's UI.
Yes, so long as you don't statically link with the GCC libc++. (The current version of gcc automatically dynamically-links the libg++.) Whether or not this is really a legal problem is, as yet, not understood.
Of course.
The GPL is a mess of legal mumbo-jumbo, and rms is more interested in convincing everyone to his point than he is in making sense.
You may keep your source code "closed-source" iff:
- you dynamically link with LGPL stuff
- you don't link (in any way) with GPL stuff
(IIRC)
A lot of people will use the STLPort version of the standard template library, because of its very permissive (non-GPL) license.
Hope this helps.
| May I use gcc to compile MY source code without releasing my source? |
| May I sell my compiled program (which I wrote from scratch using standard c++ and STL) without releasing the source? |
The GPL is a mess of legal mumbo-jumbo, and rms is more interested in convincing everyone to his point than he is in making sense.
You may keep your source code "closed-source" iff:
- you dynamically link with LGPL stuff
- you don't link (in any way) with GPL stuff
(IIRC)
A lot of people will use the STLPort version of the standard template library, because of its very permissive (non-GPL) license.
Hope this helps.
http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~etsman/Docs/gcc-3.4-base/libstdc++/html/17_intro/license.html
Q: So any program which uses libstdc++ falls under the GPL? A: No. The special exception permits use of the library in proprietary applications. |
Wait, I was under the impression that you could dynamically link non-GPL code with GPL code, and link LGPL code with non-LGPL code either way.
Yeah, that's another reason to dislike the GPL.
Average BSD licence: 1600 bytes
LGPL: 25265 bytes (I could have gone and looked for a copy of the GPL, but this one was more readily available)
Is that some way to write a software licence? Why is that preamble there? How does it help me understand what I can and cannot do with the code? Is this a licence or a constitution?
http://www.mail-archive.com/gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org/msg04542.html
I can't speak for the accuracy of the text, but at least it's amusing to some degree.
| I literally spent 45 minutes looking through the GPL FAQs and I HATE (with a passion) how everything is worded. Could I just get a clear, concise answer on these questions: |
Average BSD licence: 1600 bytes
LGPL: 25265 bytes (I could have gone and looked for a copy of the GPL, but this one was more readily available)
Is that some way to write a software licence? Why is that preamble there? How does it help me understand what I can and cannot do with the code? Is this a licence or a constitution?
http://www.mail-archive.com/gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org/msg04542.html
I can't speak for the accuracy of the text, but at least it's amusing to some degree.
Precisely one of the features of GPL that makes it special is that it is a legal mess. It is a reactionist's legal mess to the legal mess that are most western "developed" countries "intellectual property" laws. If there were no "intellectual property" laws, then there would be no GPL. That doesn't mean that RMS wouldn't be fighting for some controversial cause - it just wouldn't be one related to software.
Tbh, the fact that he writes ridiculous licenses, hates children and is scared of spider plants aside, you gotta respect how much motivation it must take to speak up like he does.
I was reading some info on the net about intellectual property, and this is what occurred to me.
Some people from the movie and software-selling industry seem to forget that all mathematics and hence computer science is based on the works of great ancient mathematicians like, for example, Euclid.
So, I say, where is the license fee paid to Euclid's heirs? Now, I am no greek, but being a neighbor, it would be quite safe to speculate my relation (DNA-wise) to Euclid is bigger than the one of Steve Ballmer. Something more, due to my profession, I am a direct intellectual heir of Euclid.
So, where are my royalties for inheriting the copyright/patents for Euclidean geometry? Who gives Microsoft the right to use mathematics without paying me for my intellectual property?
I figure, Bill Gates& company owe me, give or take a percent, a billion US dollars.
In the worst case scenario, I will be satisfied with a free copy of the C++ Visual Studio. Oh wait, I already got that for free - so far this makes my slate with Microsoft clean. They better not try to sell me anything though!
Some people from the movie and software-selling industry seem to forget that all mathematics and hence computer science is based on the works of great ancient mathematicians like, for example, Euclid.
So, I say, where is the license fee paid to Euclid's heirs? Now, I am no greek, but being a neighbor, it would be quite safe to speculate my relation (DNA-wise) to Euclid is bigger than the one of Steve Ballmer. Something more, due to my profession, I am a direct intellectual heir of Euclid.
So, where are my royalties for inheriting the copyright/patents for Euclidean geometry? Who gives Microsoft the right to use mathematics without paying me for my intellectual property?
I figure, Bill Gates& company owe me, give or take a percent, a billion US dollars.
In the worst case scenario, I will be satisfied with a free copy of the C++ Visual Studio. Oh wait, I already got that for free - so far this makes my slate with Microsoft clean. They better not try to sell me anything though!
Last edited on
Until now software patents failed to give any money to their owners ( that is also thanks to the GPL )
Of course, your whole argument is based on the assumptions that copyright laws apply retroactively, which they don't, and that there's a statistical correlation between geographical closeness and generic likeness, which is even sillier.
What do you mean?
| that is also thanks to the GPL |
Somewhere in the GPL is stated that distributors of free software can't pay to buy patents for that software
I read it on an article about when Microsoft tried to charge Novell for patents infringed by Linux
I read it on an article about when Microsoft tried to charge Novell for patents infringed by Linux
closed account (iw0XoG1T)
| Yes, so long as you don't statically link with the GCC libc++. (The current version of gcc automatically dynamically-links the libg++.) Whether or not this is really a legal problem is, as yet, not understood. |
I don't understand this statement? When I write the classic "hello world" using gcc
g++ hello.cpp -ohello is this a static link or dynamic? My understanding, which must be wrong or overly simplified, is that a static link is done at compile time and a dynamic link is done at run time?Also I find the legalism a bit over the top -- I can't even understand how to comply with GPL. If I write a utility program which I think someone else might want to use and I supply my source code, am I also suppose to include source code for every library I use and a license?
Just use a permissive license. They make more sense.
The FreeBSD license is my preference:
The FreeBSD license is my preference:
Copyright <year> <copyright holder>. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are
permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of
conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list
of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials
provided with the distribution.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY <COPYRIGHT HOLDER> ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL <COPYRIGHT HOLDER> OR
CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR
SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON
ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING
NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF
ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
The views and conclusions contained in the software and documentation are those of the
authors and should not be interpreted as representing official policies, either expressed
or implied, of <copyright holder>.
|
closed account (iw0XoG1T)
The way I understand it I can use gcc compiler but if I want to give away a program the GPL (for all practical purposes) prohibits me from giving anyone a gcc compiled program; because I am required to not only give them the source code which I write, but I am also required to provide them with the source code for all the libraries I use along with a copy of a GPL license.
Not only would this be a lot of work the language they use is threatening and seems to be designed to discourage the sharing of programs.
Why I know that I am basically computer illiterate where I work I am considered computer savvy; most the people I know would never dare to compile a program. If I cannot give them a compiled program they will never look at a program I write. So if I want to share a compiled program it had better not have been compiled using the gcc compiler.
I hope I misunderstand what the GPL is saying--but I have never seen anyone explain it adequately and usually what I am told is don't worry about it (it is my experience that when people cannot explain something it is because they don't understand it thoroughly).
I am beginning to think that the whole GPL is just a giant Andy Kauffman type joke and somewhere three people are laughing everyday.
Not only would this be a lot of work the language they use is threatening and seems to be designed to discourage the sharing of programs.
Why I know that I am basically computer illiterate where I work I am considered computer savvy; most the people I know would never dare to compile a program. If I cannot give them a compiled program they will never look at a program I write. So if I want to share a compiled program it had better not have been compiled using the gcc compiler.
I hope I misunderstand what the GPL is saying--but I have never seen anyone explain it adequately and usually what I am told is don't worry about it (it is my experience that when people cannot explain something it is because they don't understand it thoroughly).
I am beginning to think that the whole GPL is just a giant Andy Kauffman type joke and somewhere three people are laughing everyday.