Let's see... A New LFS Patch comes out... the original solo developer now plays World Of Warcraft and never leaves to drive LFS again and can't be bothered to update code...
How many times have you been burned by closed binary only releases and the developer (some guy on his own) just gives up and fades away never to be seen again.
More people might get involved and help keep it running strong if the source is available . Big Deal... keep sharing the code and keep the community string.
Do you really want to turn this into an argument, because this is eventually how it's going to go, as opinions are involved? The problem with it being GPL'ed it spelt out very, very clearly by my previous posts, but lets go for it again.
The problem with the GPL is that any code that does not work "at an arms length" must be of the same or compatible licence. This practically means that any application developed using LFSlib must be GPL compatible, as a wrapper is not "at an arms length". This means that any program using LFSlib must be open source itself.
This doesn't affect how LFSlib itself is developed, it affects how programs developed with it are developed. This is my problem.
I'm personally pro open source, I'm not pro copyleft.
It's up to the developer of LFSlib naturally, and as I don't use it I couldn't give two hoots. I'm just trying to make clear the general issue people take with the GPL.
Forcing InSim apps to be open-source I think its a grand idea. It means that if the original developer goes bye-bye, then someone else can pick up the tab so to speak. I like open source (of course, I work on all closed source on the job, so kinda straddle fence) but dislike the draconian FSF. Open source libs are great and I do feel they should be usable by all, but that changes/modifications/etc. to the lib should be forced to be open source.
It should be noted that the copyright holder of any piece of code could release that code under any number of licenses. It can and does happen.
I haven't really looked into licenses that much, but if I release a program under the GPL, does that mean that it must be open-source? And if it is, can't every one just copy all my program and pass it as their own?
Yes, if you distribute a program under the GPL then you must release the source.
I think the main point here is not if GPL is evil, it's just that addon programmers should really think about and understand the licenses that they use. Also, just because you want to make a project open-source, doesn't mean you need to do so under the GPL, there are many other less prohibitive licenses around. Plus at the end of the day there is nothing wrong with just ignoring them all and making up your own.
Heck, I'd suggest we write a special LFS Addon License, if I didn't think it would collapse into arguments.
If you're worried about that then don't make your program open-source to begin with. Just be careful what libraries you use, as the license they use may force you to.
It depends entirely on which license you use, as each stipulate different conditions. The only thing is to read the license in question and see what it says.
I hope I don't sound like I'm ranting... I'm not. (Oh, and I'm new at posting here and missed the actual recent thread on Licencing... you have my permission to smack the noob.)
Dougie, You have to supply source... "somehow". Usually it means along side the release as a separate download but is commonly found in the same package.
Honest, I'm not trying to argue and I do know how GPL gets under some peoples skin. I'm also not looking for anyone to say "Hey, I agree with you!". I can be a lone wolf with my opinion and not mind it a bit.
The LINUX world has this GPL argument all the time. If the product is to be part of a "for sale" proprietary package... it gets downright uncomfortable to use GPL sources. The rule there is... "don't use it". It might mean you need to re-invent something, but that was the consequence. The real sticky part comes if you have a new idea "added" to the original GPL code that you are not completely willing to share and would prefer to just provide compiled code for your "novel" approach. It's a "no can do" with GPL, but OK with MIT or somthing more relaxed.
I prefer to think that the original goal of GPL is to counteract proprietary solutions and... amazingly enough... discourage code stealing because you always have to supply the code... If the revisions get reviewed and code is readily available... there is little possibility someone can steal code and call it their own. ;-)
Of course, if the GPL is not followed and code is assembled into binary and the souces are never supplied... well... it would take more than a few minutes to figure out it was originally GPL'd code. Time for lawyers in that case.
Anyway, for the add-on market proprietary usually means "for sale" and with items like LFS or any other PC based SIM or "toy", I'm certainly in favor of the developers that provide source code for the very reasons being discussed. I'm not saying people should not try selling sofware add-ons... just that I personally will always look at those items LAST. I'm not saying that because I'm pinching pennies.
Having been burned by orphaned software products one too many times in the past, I am now less likely to see payware as a preferred path for add-ons.
Hi guys. Not to be a shit, but would you mind producing some text or html orientated documentation so that those of us without Visual Studio can tell what the arguments for each method are. This would help those of us who don't use LFS_External, don't have visual studio (and have no intention of touching it with a barge pole) and are helping people out who are using it.
You are absolutely right. It currently lacks documentation. But thats because the current code structure is not final yet. The next version, which will be released soon has the final code structure, or at least final enough to make documentation for it. I'm not gonna make any documentation for this version.
I agree it needs some basic instructions to get you going though. I didn't expect it to be used by so many newcomers to programming.
A bit of documentation would be in order, on that we can agree, but right now i need to know which of theese 3 letter code things to enable, to see when someone crosses the start/finish line, can anyone help, please?
