Re: RE: domapi license issues (fwd)

Troy Farrell <[email protected]> Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:22:43 -0600
Newsgroups	gmane.editors.bitflux.devel
Organization	Entheos Software
Message-ID	<[email protected]>
See my comments below.

Christian Stocker wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 15:53, Troy Farrell wrote:
> 
>>Christian,
>>
>>Thanks for looking into this so deeply.  I like the BitFlux Editor and 
>>am very impressed by it's features.  I haven't done much coding with it 
>>since I've not yet figured out the XSchema portion necessary to make it 
>>work.  I'd like to use it and when that happens, I'll be more able to 
>>contribute.
> 
> 
> We will support better Schema support in BXE-NG, one of our customer
> needs more features in Schema validation, therefore we certainly
> implement it anytime in the nearer future.

That is certainly good news.  However, I'm not waiting on better schema 
support.  I just need to understand what is there :)  I'd have to joing 
in all the other users wanting a simple example.  I'm sure you're busy, 
but I'd love to be able to edit this:

<page>
   <para>
This is my text.
   </para>
</page>


And have it displayed as

<html>
   <head/>
   <body>
     <div contentEditable="true">
       <p>
This is my text.
       </p>
     </div>
   </body>
</html>

That would get me started :)  As I mentionned, I understand the xsl that 
I need, I just don't know how to modify XSD to make bxe work with it.

> I agree. domapi looks like having everything I need for starting and it
> would save me a lot of work at the beginning. We could use/integrate
> domapi without violating their license, but it's not a free (as in
> speech) library. And this could give us some problems later, or just
> "piss off" some potential developers (as KDE1 did and GNOME emerged to
> take your example).

With KDE/Gnome, we got 2 good things :)  I'm not sure the same would 
happen in this case.

> I looked into DynAPI and domapi and domapi appealled me a little bit
> more. More "official" widgets, better documentation, etc.. But if the
> license of domapi stays the same (I will write another mail to domapi to
> see, if I can persuade them to change it), I will look deeper into
> DynAPI again. Furthermore, DynAPI is LGPL which would lead us to
> "License-Hell" as well. Maybe only pre-hell, but nevertheless :)

Well, with DynAPI, we'd only have to distribute changes to DynAPI under 
LGPL, with the rest of the code under the Apache license.  Still, I 
don't know enough about DHTML to make these decisions.  I'll follow your 
lead...

>>Food for thought:  KDE1 was based on Troll Tech's QT library before it 
>>was free.  KDE1 was a ground breaker that succeeded in spite of it's 
>>non-free base.  (Troll Tech eventually made QT/linux open-source, but 
>>that's another story.  I don't think Bitflux Editor has that much sway :)
> 
> but on the other side, domapi is not a big company like TT ;) But it has
> to happen before I start using it and not afterwards (if we find an
> acceptable alternative)

Sounds like a plan.  Keep us posted.

Troy

-- 
bx-editor-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.bitflux.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/bx-editor-dev