Then it's no longer an open source project but commercial software. They'd be violating the GPL if they kept it open source but charged for it.
Not so. Developers can charge for GPL as long as they provide the source code as well. How would Suse, Redhat or any of the multitude of others charging for GPL'ed software ever get away with it?
As a small aside, I've used KOffice in the past and while it wasn't perfect, it did some neat things that impressed me (maybe my expectations were low but I used it and it worked).
Well, thank God nobody cares what delusional people like RMS have to say.
...
The crux of *your* misunderstanding is that people care.
...
...whether X11 should be abandoned for something better, regardless of whether that's open source or not.
...
"Principles" have nothing to do with it. For developers, they may. For users, they simply don't.
...
So developers are doing us a favor, and if we don't like it, we are not allowed to complain?
...
The developers will immediately turn into jackass mode...
I'm very sorry you feel this way. If all those delusional hippie Free software developers felt the same way, from RMS on down, we wouldn't be having this argument - there would be nothing to argue over. Can you even begin to imagine how different the world would be without a Free GCC? Ultimately, Free software - including KOffice - is about principle, and nothing else. Like JavaCowby said:
Quote:
People generally initiate, and contribute to open-source projects because they use the software and want the freedom to make it better.
Yes, they are doing you (and me, and themselves, and everybody) a favor. Yes, you are allowed to complain. They are allowed to ignore you. You are allowed to stop complaining and start helping. You are even allowed to do it yourself. Then they are allowed to complain to you. You see how this Freedom thing works? It's not like it's specific to word-processing software...
Not so. Developers can charge for GPL as long as they provide the source code as well. How would Suse, Redhat or any of the multitude of others charging for GPL'ed software ever get away with it?
They provide the source code and allow you to download the binaries in some format. For RedHat, it's Fedora. For SuSE, they let you do a binary install. These companies really make money by charging for support and other services. Still, it's debatable whether or not RedHat is violating the GPL. Some would argue that RedHat is exempt for political reasons, ie, they promote the use of Free Software in corporations.
The GPL does not allow you to take GPL'd code, build on top of it, and keep the source closed. If you make modifications, you must submit them back to the community. The only way you could re-license the code to a closed source license is if you own the copyright.
NeoOffice would have to provide a free binary (similar to the way SuSE does) and most definitely would have to provide the source code free of charge. Even if they only provide the source code, somebody else could compile it and distribute the binary.
NeoOffice would have to provide a free binary (similar to the way SuSE does) and most definitely would have to provide the source code free of charge. Even if they only provide the source code, somebody else could compile it and distribute the binary.
I agree, and per their FAQ:
"Why use the full GPL?
Using the full GPL ensures that anyone who makes improvements to NeoOffice will share them with the community."
They offer free downloads but charge for a copy on CD. They provide the source code. That sounds within the limits of the GPL to me.
"I understand what's probably the single most critical feature of the personal computer may be a PITA in X11..."
No, the most critical feature of the personal computer is the ability to let you connect to other, distant, personal computers so you can share data. That feature is known as networking.
Plus no one here said that copy & paste are impossible in X11, they are very possible, though the code could be cleaned-up a little bit and it be re-organized/re-written.
X11 has several methods for apps to implement copy & paste, and some apps implement one way while others choose a different way. Hence, the PITA, the lack of a unified way to do it. This is transparent to you as a user only if you decide to tinker around with X11 and study its copy & paste function.
And that sounds like something you might do, seeing as you think copy & paste is the most critical feature in a personal computer.
No, the most critical feature of the personal computer is the ability to let you connect to other, distant, personal computers so you can share data. That feature is known as networking.
Plus no one here said that copy & paste are impossible in X11, they are very possible, though the code could be cleaned-up a little bit and it be re-organized/re-written.
X11 has several methods for apps to implement copy & paste, and some apps implement one way while others choose a different way. Hence, the PITA, the lack of a unified way to do it. This is transparent to you as a user only if you decide to tinker around with X11 and study its copy & paste function.
And that sounds like something you might do, seeing as you think copy & paste is the most critical feature in a personal computer.
People bought computers years before the internet. Try writing a paper without copy and paste or drag and drop. It's impossible. Copy and paste is literally the single reason why the word processor won out over the typewriter.
Papers are required to be original, so copy & paste are not that important. Things change, they evolve. People don't buy computers for the same reason they bought them in 1965 anymore. Todays computers are used as tools of communication and collaboration; see? We are talking here. I don't think copy & paste made this possible.
Once developers start using NetBeans and Matisse, Java apps will look sweet:
Why? The developer still has to know something about great user interfaces, and it still won't make an app with a GUI designed for Windows feel like a Mac app on Mac OS X.
Swing apps can have a Mac feel to them, but they have to be designed that way - Matisse or no Matisse.
I'm still waiting for the constraint-based UI building to come out of Apple's labs... I saw demos of this back in '97 at WWDC, and it was being touted as a way of building a UI that would adapt cleanly to the native UI it was hosted on. It looked rather advanced, and elegantly done. Then it went bye-bye, except for relatively tiny bits and pieces that have popped up in Interface Builder.
I've often wondered if it isn't being held back for a Cocoa/Win deployment - write to Cocoa, use Interface Builder, get a UI that morphs to look/act/feel like an honest to god Windows app when run under Windows.
What's not clear here? Papers (academic essays) are required to be original (no plagiarism) and copy & paste is one of the least used functions when writing an academic paper.
What's not clear here? Papers (academic essays) are required to be original (no plagiarism) and copy & paste is one of the least used functions when writing an academic paper.
That's insane. Copy and paste is integral to any type of writing.
Reworking draft passages into a final piece would be torture without it.
I'm still waiting for the constraint-based UI building to come out of Apple's labs... I saw demos of this back in '97 at WWDC, and it was being touted as a way of building a UI that would adapt cleanly to the native UI it was hosted on. It looked rather advanced, and elegantly done. Then it went bye-bye, except for relatively tiny bits and pieces that have popped up in Interface Builder.
I've often wondered if it isn't being held back for a Cocoa/Win deployment - write to Cocoa, use Interface Builder, get a UI that morphs to look/act/feel like an honest to god Windows app when run under Windows.
The second coming of Yellow Box. Interesting, I had no idea anyone had ever seen something like that with their own eyes.
Now that Apple produces iTunes for Windows, I can see them taking the time to refine something like this in the lab for years and then suddenly unveil it in dramatic fashion.
But writing code is for developers, so if something like this were ever introduced, it would be at WWDC.
That's insane. Copy and paste is integral to any type of writing.
Reworking draft passages into a final piece would be torture without it.
Oh come on Frank, REAL MEN write everything from scratch. I'm sure that Gene does an 'rm -rf *' everytime he sits down to edit code, after all. Anything less is for weenies.
Guys, this little side banter has strayed from the thread topic, please take it to PMs, or another thread if you must.
That's insane. Copy and paste is integral to any type of writing.
Is it the most critical feature of a computer though? That was the claim.
Quote:
Oh come on Frank, REAL MEN write everything from scratch. I'm sure that Gene does an 'rm -rf *' everytime he sits down to edit code, after all. Anything less is for weenies.
So real man copy and paste all the time? And take it easy on the "sarcasm". It ain't funny.
I'm still waiting for the constraint-based UI building to come out of Apple's labs... I saw demos of this back in '97 at WWDC, and it was being touted as a way of building a UI that would adapt cleanly to the native UI it was hosted on. It looked rather advanced, and elegantly done. Then it went bye-bye, except for relatively tiny bits and pieces that have popped up in Interface Builder.
I've often wondered if it isn't being held back for a Cocoa/Win deployment - write to Cocoa, use Interface Builder, get a UI that morphs to look/act/feel like an honest to god Windows app when run under Windows.
For the sake of keeping a great thread alive:
Do you have a link about this build framework form '97? I'd like to read more about it.
I'm wondering how this work, in terms of "adapt cleanly to the native UI". What does that entail?
No, no link, it was a 'work-in-progress' that I got to see demoed by an Apple dev at that point, so it's entirely possible that it simply didn't work out - what I saw was pretty impressive though. Heck, I don't even recall a codename.
Basically, it was the IB 'guidelines' on steroids. (And in fact, I suspect that's what happened with it.) When you dropped a button in IB, it took a quick look around and figured out what was around the drop site. It would then place it based on the HIG distances... and also remember *why* it was placed there. (Button to the left, so place it X pixels to the right of that, divider bar below, so we need to float Y pixels above that... etc) So, if you changed the underlying rules (values of X, Y, etc) , it would shift the UI on the fly. The idea was that you could have rule sets for various UIs, and the same initial layout would then adapt to the underlying UI philosophy. Then even went so far as to sort common menu items into the appropriate menu (overrideable of course) based on how that UI wanted menu items grouped. (ie, Quit went under the application menu in an OS X layout, but appeared under the File menu in an OS9 layout...)
There was an academic project at about the same time that had an impressive constraint-based UI layout system... Amber? Hmm, maybe I'm confusing that with Amulet...
Anyway, it was a technology that wouldn't really be applicable here - the porting of KOffice (or any other non-Mac app) requires a clean break between the functionality and the interface, if the app has *any* hope of being a good port. Rebuilding the entire UI from scratch is a pain in any case.
Wow that's cool!!! I mean my programming experience is like...some hypercard, Programming I in high school with VB, and fucking around with shit like Resedit and IB. But that sounds flippin cool.
Comments
Originally posted by JavaCowboy
Then it's no longer an open source project but commercial software. They'd be violating the GPL if they kept it open source but charged for it.
Not so. Developers can charge for GPL as long as they provide the source code as well. How would Suse, Redhat or any of the multitude of others charging for GPL'ed software ever get away with it?
As a small aside, I've used KOffice in the past and while it wasn't perfect, it did some neat things that impressed me (maybe my expectations were low but I used it and it worked).
Originally posted by Chucker
Well, thank God nobody cares what delusional people like RMS have to say.
...
The crux of *your* misunderstanding is that people care.
...
...whether X11 should be abandoned for something better, regardless of whether that's open source or not.
...
"Principles" have nothing to do with it. For developers, they may. For users, they simply don't.
...
So developers are doing us a favor, and if we don't like it, we are not allowed to complain?
...
The developers will immediately turn into jackass mode...
I'm very sorry you feel this way. If all those delusional hippie Free software developers felt the same way, from RMS on down, we wouldn't be having this argument - there would be nothing to argue over. Can you even begin to imagine how different the world would be without a Free GCC? Ultimately, Free software - including KOffice - is about principle, and nothing else. Like JavaCowby said:
People generally initiate, and contribute to open-source projects because they use the software and want the freedom to make it better.
Yes, they are doing you (and me, and themselves, and everybody) a favor. Yes, you are allowed to complain. They are allowed to ignore you. You are allowed to stop complaining and start helping. You are even allowed to do it yourself. Then they are allowed to complain to you. You see how this Freedom thing works? It's not like it's specific to word-processing software...
I blame TV.
Originally posted by Bancho
Not so. Developers can charge for GPL as long as they provide the source code as well. How would Suse, Redhat or any of the multitude of others charging for GPL'ed software ever get away with it?
They provide the source code and allow you to download the binaries in some format. For RedHat, it's Fedora. For SuSE, they let you do a binary install. These companies really make money by charging for support and other services. Still, it's debatable whether or not RedHat is violating the GPL. Some would argue that RedHat is exempt for political reasons, ie, they promote the use of Free Software in corporations.
The GPL does not allow you to take GPL'd code, build on top of it, and keep the source closed. If you make modifications, you must submit them back to the community. The only way you could re-license the code to a closed source license is if you own the copyright.
NeoOffice would have to provide a free binary (similar to the way SuSE does) and most definitely would have to provide the source code free of charge. Even if they only provide the source code, somebody else could compile it and distribute the binary.
Originally posted by JavaCowboy
NeoOffice would have to provide a free binary (similar to the way SuSE does) and most definitely would have to provide the source code free of charge. Even if they only provide the source code, somebody else could compile it and distribute the binary.
I agree, and per their FAQ:
"Why use the full GPL?
Using the full GPL ensures that anyone who makes improvements to NeoOffice will share them with the community."
They offer free downloads but charge for a copy on CD. They provide the source code. That sounds within the limits of the GPL to me.
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
"I understand what's probably the single most critical feature of the personal computer may be a PITA in X11..."
No, the most critical feature of the personal computer is the ability to let you connect to other, distant, personal computers so you can share data. That feature is known as networking.
Plus no one here said that copy & paste are impossible in X11, they are very possible, though the code could be cleaned-up a little bit and it be re-organized/re-written.
X11 has several methods for apps to implement copy & paste, and some apps implement one way while others choose a different way. Hence, the PITA, the lack of a unified way to do it. This is transparent to you as a user only if you decide to tinker around with X11 and study its copy & paste function.
And that sounds like something you might do, seeing as you think copy & paste is the most critical feature in a personal computer.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
No, the most critical feature of the personal computer is the ability to let you connect to other, distant, personal computers so you can share data. That feature is known as networking.
Plus no one here said that copy & paste are impossible in X11, they are very possible, though the code could be cleaned-up a little bit and it be re-organized/re-written.
X11 has several methods for apps to implement copy & paste, and some apps implement one way while others choose a different way. Hence, the PITA, the lack of a unified way to do it. This is transparent to you as a user only if you decide to tinker around with X11 and study its copy & paste function.
And that sounds like something you might do, seeing as you think copy & paste is the most critical feature in a personal computer.
People bought computers years before the internet. Try writing a paper without copy and paste or drag and drop. It's impossible. Copy and paste is literally the single reason why the word processor won out over the typewriter.
Anyway, that's a whole different story.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Papers are required to be original, so copy & paste are not that important.
Originally posted by JavaCowboy
Once developers start using NetBeans and Matisse, Java apps will look sweet:
Why? The developer still has to know something about great user interfaces, and it still won't make an app with a GUI designed for Windows feel like a Mac app on Mac OS X.
Swing apps can have a Mac feel to them, but they have to be designed that way - Matisse or no Matisse.
I've often wondered if it isn't being held back for a Cocoa/Win deployment - write to Cocoa, use Interface Builder, get a UI that morphs to look/act/feel like an honest to god Windows app when run under Windows.
Originally posted by JLL
What's not clear here? Papers (academic essays) are required to be original (no plagiarism) and copy & paste is one of the least used functions when writing an academic paper.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
What's not clear here? Papers (academic essays) are required to be original (no plagiarism) and copy & paste is one of the least used functions when writing an academic paper.
That's insane. Copy and paste is integral to any type of writing.
Reworking draft passages into a final piece would be torture without it.
Originally posted by Kickaha
I'm still waiting for the constraint-based UI building to come out of Apple's labs... I saw demos of this back in '97 at WWDC, and it was being touted as a way of building a UI that would adapt cleanly to the native UI it was hosted on. It looked rather advanced, and elegantly done. Then it went bye-bye, except for relatively tiny bits and pieces that have popped up in Interface Builder.
I've often wondered if it isn't being held back for a Cocoa/Win deployment - write to Cocoa, use Interface Builder, get a UI that morphs to look/act/feel like an honest to god Windows app when run under Windows.
The second coming of Yellow Box. Interesting, I had no idea anyone had ever seen something like that with their own eyes.
Now that Apple produces iTunes for Windows, I can see them taking the time to refine something like this in the lab for years and then suddenly unveil it in dramatic fashion.
But writing code is for developers, so if something like this were ever introduced, it would be at WWDC.
Originally posted by Frank777
That's insane. Copy and paste is integral to any type of writing.
Reworking draft passages into a final piece would be torture without it.
Oh come on Frank, REAL MEN write everything from scratch. I'm sure that Gene does an 'rm -rf *' everytime he sits down to edit code, after all. Anything less is for weenies.
Guys, this little side banter has strayed from the thread topic, please take it to PMs, or another thread if you must.
Originally posted by Frank777
That's insane. Copy and paste is integral to any type of writing.
Is it the most critical feature of a computer though? That was the claim.
Oh come on Frank, REAL MEN write everything from scratch. I'm sure that Gene does an 'rm -rf *' everytime he sits down to edit code, after all. Anything less is for weenies.
So real man copy and paste all the time? And take it easy on the "sarcasm". It ain't funny.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Is it the most critical feature of a computer though?
No. But it is among the most productiveness-enhancing ones.
So real man copy and paste all the time?
"Real men" copy and paste a lot and drag and drop (which, depending on the context, is often a visual form of copy and paste) a lot.
Originally posted by Kickaha
I'm still waiting for the constraint-based UI building to come out of Apple's labs... I saw demos of this back in '97 at WWDC, and it was being touted as a way of building a UI that would adapt cleanly to the native UI it was hosted on. It looked rather advanced, and elegantly done. Then it went bye-bye, except for relatively tiny bits and pieces that have popped up in Interface Builder.
I've often wondered if it isn't being held back for a Cocoa/Win deployment - write to Cocoa, use Interface Builder, get a UI that morphs to look/act/feel like an honest to god Windows app when run under Windows.
For the sake of keeping a great thread alive:
Do you have a link about this build framework form '97? I'd like to read more about it.
I'm wondering how this work, in terms of "adapt cleanly to the native UI". What does that entail?
Basically, it was the IB 'guidelines' on steroids. (And in fact, I suspect that's what happened with it.) When you dropped a button in IB, it took a quick look around and figured out what was around the drop site. It would then place it based on the HIG distances... and also remember *why* it was placed there. (Button to the left, so place it X pixels to the right of that, divider bar below, so we need to float Y pixels above that... etc) So, if you changed the underlying rules (values of X, Y, etc) , it would shift the UI on the fly. The idea was that you could have rule sets for various UIs, and the same initial layout would then adapt to the underlying UI philosophy. Then even went so far as to sort common menu items into the appropriate menu (overrideable of course) based on how that UI wanted menu items grouped. (ie, Quit went under the application menu in an OS X layout, but appeared under the File menu in an OS9 layout...)
There was an academic project at about the same time that had an impressive constraint-based UI layout system... Amber? Hmm, maybe I'm confusing that with Amulet...
Anyway, it was a technology that wouldn't really be applicable here - the porting of KOffice (or any other non-Mac app) requires a clean break between the functionality and the interface, if the app has *any* hope of being a good port. Rebuilding the entire UI from scratch is a pain in any case.