It doesn't quite go that far. The thing is, the menus don't start in a fixed place, but rather are all context menus that pop up when you right-click on your image.
Context menus are great -- if they're short. Long lists there (especially with multiple levels of submenus) really slow things down. A better way to do it would be to use the context menu for a few common features, and put the rest on a menubar. An even better way to do it (in my humble non-mac opinion) would be to make the right mouse button do something related to the tool selected (like draw in the background color?).
I don't mind the multiple windows so much, but the multi-level context menus drive me crazy. With photoshop, commonly used functions are in the same place every time -- I don't need to look, because my hand knows where to click. That doesn't work with the Gimp's UI.
Sure, this totally makes sense. For example, the Word document's description of a table is going to be based on the way Word renders tables. If your program makes tables a different way, a one-to-one conversion may not be possible. In order to do a lossless conversion, you'd need to incorporate the way Word does it into your app.
To the first part: motif isn't a standard system library on Linux, so probably yes, you'd be in violation. (If you'd count motif as a system library, there would be no problem, since they're not distributed together.)
The second part is a very good point. As I read it, propriatary operating systems CAN'T ship with GPL'd software. This is extremely interesting -- I don't know about Solaris, but IRIX sure does....
Not enough, since all the original GPLed software would need to have the original license updated (see problem 1).
Possibly good enough, actually: check out section #9 of the GPL:
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
So the problem would only exist in those cases where the programs specified a specific version of the GPL.
GPL'd code can only be linked with other GPL'd code (or code under a more permissive license, like the modified BSD license).
There is a specific exception for system libraries, but this only applies if the application in question is not distributed with said libraries.
If KDE would add this:
As a special exception, you have permission to link this program with the Qt library and distribute executables, as long as you follow the requirements of the GNU GPL in regard to all of the software in the executable aside from Qt.
to their license, there would be no problem. The trick is, there's a lot of authors involved, and they'd all have to agree.
Apparently, the new license still has problems -- it's good enough in the sense that it's a valid free software license, but it's not compatible with the GPL.
No, that doesn't work. The "major component" loophole is not valid if the component accompanies the program being distribued. So they can't legally ship both KDE and QT, even if QT is considered a major component.
I'm not really sure how the major commercial distributions are answering this. It's not something that makes a big noisebecause neither the KDE authors nor the QT people want to make a fuss about it, but it DOES ultimately weaken the GPL.
No good. The special exception for system libraries only works when library isn't shipped with the executable. In other words, if QT were a standard system component, it would be fine for you to install KDE on a Debian system -- it's just not okay for them to ship both together.
As for DDD: it's GPL. LessTif is LGPL. What's the problem?
I'm not sure I understand your analogy. To me, it seems like it's a good thing to be able to run at 80mph when you need to (the cops are chasing you?) but then coast when you're not doing much. Since cpu use tends to be intermittent, running at 25mph doesn't seem useful.
But then, I don't think that "running at 25mph" is what Transmeta does at all. In fact, you say that Transmeta chips can fine tune power usage for any particular application....
I don't think it's just that the colors are in a triangular distribution. It's also that they're not in a predefined, addressable grid. (Which is why you can run your monitor at all sorts of random resolutions without resorting to the ugly "stretching" used to get 640x480 on 1024x768 LCDs.)
The hardware very is different, but both modern LCDs and old Apple displays have the concept of "subpixels". They exist for different reasons, but the software concepts used to take advantage of them is remarkably similar.
I'd be curious to see studies, or even numbers on this. I know that devices must meet certain FCC radio emissions standards to be sold for home/office use. Does anyone know what those are?
Okay, fine -- cell phones are radio transmitters after all. But I'd really like to see a study about laptop computers -- it's ridiculous to have to keep them turned off. Airlines even make people "turn off" their palm pilots (never mind that they don't really have an "off" setting), which can't be producing much more interference than a digital watch....
Slashdot Mirror
--
--
--
--
--
Context menus are great -- if they're short. Long lists there (especially with multiple levels of submenus) really slow things down. A better way to do it would be to use the context menu for a few common features, and put the rest on a menubar. An even better way to do it (in my humble non-mac opinion) would be to make the right mouse button do something related to the tool selected (like draw in the background color?).
--
--
The G is supposed to be pronounced. Check out the explanation from the GNU Manifesto:
I assume that the main confusion that is supposed to be avoided is with the word "new", not with the animal. ("Have you heard of the new project?")
--
--
--
--
The second part is a very good point. As I read it, propriatary operating systems CAN'T ship with GPL'd software. This is extremely interesting -- I don't know about Solaris, but IRIX sure does....
--
--
Not enough, since all the original GPLed software would need to have the original license updated (see problem 1).
Possibly good enough, actually: check out section #9 of the GPL:
So the problem would only exist in those cases where the programs specified a specific version of the GPL.
--
GPL'd code can only be linked with other GPL'd code (or code under a more permissive license, like the modified BSD license).
There is a specific exception for system libraries, but this only applies if the application in question is not distributed with said libraries.
If KDE would add this:
to their license, there would be no problem. The trick is, there's a lot of authors involved, and they'd all have to agree.--
--
I'm not really sure how the major commercial distributions are answering this. It's not something that makes a big noisebecause neither the KDE authors nor the QT people want to make a fuss about it, but it DOES ultimately weaken the GPL.
--
As for DDD: it's GPL. LessTif is LGPL. What's the problem?
--
But then, I don't think that "running at 25mph" is what Transmeta does at all. In fact, you say that Transmeta chips can fine tune power usage for any particular application....
--
--
--
--
--
--
--