Re: [Fresco-devel] Re: Cross-platformability

M. Evans wrote:

> I know about GGI and SDL.  GGI is a bit lower-level than SDL, and I
> think SDL can run with GGI as a "back end."

that's right. SDL's design was quite a bit based on GGI. Unfortunately,
SDL is pretty specific in that it targets game development and misses
a lot of the flexibility GGI has to offer (input device abstraction,
for example).

> My question was not really "can Fresco run on DisplayPDF" but rather
> "does Fresco bear any relation to DisplayPDF."  DisplayPDF is simply a
> resolution-independent graphics API.  Apple adopted it for their Mac
> OS X.  The Scientific Python Chaco project uses it too.  My question
> arose from a curiosity about the design of Fresco.  It shares with
> DisplayPDF the resolution independence aspect.
> 
> I assume from your answer that Fresco is an ab initio design bearing
> no relation to DisplayPDF.

we use a scene graph and a scene graph renderer. Lots of modern 3D
renderers use this approach, and some 2D tools do, too.

> The reality of business code is that it almost always involves some
> library modification.  So raw linkage as defined by LGPL doesn't cut it.
> Think about using a widget library like wxWindows.  There is an extremely
> strong likelihood that *any* application will subclass some widgets.

So what ? Put your subclasses into your own library and ship them 
binary-only. But please keep the LPGL library you derive from free.

> Even the idealized world postulated by LGPL doesn't work out.
> Assume an ideal businessman really wants to help the LGPL project.
> So he submits all his modifications back to the project.  There is
> still a potential headache.  What if the project *rejects* his
> changes?  Now, the businessman is under obligation to create his *own*
> mechanism for source code distribution!  He must offer end users
> a means to re-link the application using his particular variant of
> the LGPL code.  He must offer source code to his version of the LGPL
> library.  It all gets very sticky.

[...]

 > When you think about it, it's much more polite to ask business to
 > contribute what it is willing/able to contribute, than to demand,
 > up-front, surrender of all library changes.

The issue is not about being polite or not. It is my right to require
anybody who uses (and modifies) my code to keep it free. I don't demand
anything from anybody. But whoever demands me to use my code, may
do so under the conditions *I* set. That is common business practice,
and business men are generally very proficient with these rules, 
especially if they defend *their* interests.

The point is that it is not 'his version of the LPGL library', but
rather a free library he happened to make changes to. I don't have
any trouble asking for these modifications to remain free, too.

But anyways, lets not get dragged into a license war here. There
are other places to carry out such discussions.

Stefan