GTK is just a toolkit but it sits on top of glib, which is a C api to a bunch of that other stuff - the whole GTK family has basically all the stuff that Qt has, it's just seperated out more.
As for XUL - as far as I'm aware, the only XUL-based application out there is Mozilla and XUL is tied very tightly to it - are there any XUL libraries for other, more native toolkits? There's at least a couple other XML based layout languages - wxWindows has one, Gtk has one, and I think Qt uses one now also. Whats the gain from XUL?
Re:Qt is almost a like a language
on
A Taste of Qt 4
·
· Score: 1
Well, any C++ (or C, for that matter, or any other language where you need to do explicit memory managment) will come up with similiar auto-deleting data structures very quickly. The design of C++ is such that writing them is very easy - this sort of paradigm is fundamental in C++ and it's one of the reason it's "better" than C - it's easier to write safer code. So it's actually very good C++ practice. However, someone who is just learning C++ should learn how to do it themselves, even if they've got a toolkit that does it for them. I can't help but think that you're misremembring the DDJ article/comment.
Re:Trolltechs license is great I don't think so
on
A Taste of Qt 4
·
· Score: 1
This is a ridiculous question - there's plenty of cross-platform OS applications. None of them use Qt, because you can't reasonably write cross platform, open source applications in Qt that target windows - anyone who wanted to use your app there would need a Qt license. So of course you don't see "demand" for cross platform apps if you're Trolltech - anyone who writes open source code with your toolkit has already given up on porting to Windows. People who want to write cross platform apps use other options.
Also, it's common at animation shops to coopt desktop CPUs when people aren't working - you'd either have to give this up or standardize the hardware/software in your renderfarm with the hardware/software the desktops use (which would be silly).
I did the same thing (except that I rememebered the sequence on the ATM, not on the keypad) and I locked out my card 3 times trying to use the online banking before I actually looked at the keypad and realized what was happening. Even stranger is that I used to do lots of data entry, so I can keypad without looking if I actually know the numbers.
Checking return values is a horrible use for exceptions. Exceptions are for critical but recoverable errors. "Normal" error conditions shouldn't throw exceptions, not least of which because it makes the code so much nastier and twisting to deal with it. Exceptions are great and allow you to do a type of error handling that would be impossible without them, but I think that some C++ (and especially Java) people get far to enamored of them.
No, the MSVC runtimes redistributable terms wouldn't be GPL-compatable.
The rental/hosting clause is for the software, not software you make with the software - you can't provide public compile farm services with it, for example.
I just read the EULA. I'll post it here, after my comment.
There's suprisingly little in it, the vast majority of it is standard boilerplate. Only the first clause relates to what you can do with it, and it seems to limit you to personal use only (ie, no selling the binaries you create), but it's not explicit. The rest of it deals with standard redistributables (the C/C++ runtimes/STL) and standard waivers of liability, etc.
Presumably because it's distributed/sold in Quebec, theres a bunch of French at the end which, in the interests of space, I have snipped.
END-USER LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR MICROSOFT SOFTWARE
MICROSOFT VISUAL C++ TOOLKIT 2003
IMPORTANT-READ CAREFULLY: This End-User License Agreement ("EULA") is a legal agreement between you (either an individual or a single entity) and Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") for the Microsoft software that accompanies this EULA, which includes computer software and may include associated media, printed materials including best practices, white papers, templates, "online" or electronic documentation, and Internet-based services ("Software"). An amendment or addendum to this EULA may accompany the Software. YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE SOFTWARE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL, COPY, OR USE THE SOFTWARE.
MICROSOFT Software LICENSE
1. GRANTS OF LICENSE. Microsoft grants you the rights described in this EULA provided that you comply with all terms and conditions of this EULA.
1.1 General License Grant. Microsoft grants to you as an individual, a personal, nonexclusive license to make and use copies of the Software (i) for your internal use; (ii) for designing, developing, testing and demonstrating your software product(s); and (iii) for evaluation of the Software.
1.2 Documentation. You may make and use an unlimited number of copies of any documentation, provided that such copies shall be used only for personal internal purposes and are not to be republished or distributed (either in hard copy or electronic form) beyond your premises except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
2. ADDITIONAL LICENSE RIGHTS -- REDISTRIBUTABLES. In addition to the rights granted in Section 1, certain portions of the Software, as described in this Sectionÿ2, are provided to you with additional license rights. These additional license rights are conditioned upon your compliance with the distribution requirements and license restrictions described in Section 3.
2.1 Sample Code. Microsoft grants you the right to use and modify the source code version of those portions of the Software identified as "Samples" in REDIST.TXT or elsewhere in the Software ("Sample Code") for the sole purposes of designing, developing, and testing your software product(s), and to reproduce and distribute the Sample Code along with any modifications thereof, in object and/or source code form. For applicable redistribution requirements for Sample Code, see Section 3.1 below.
2.2 Redistributable Code-General. Microsoft grants you a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to reproduce and distribute the object code form of any portion of the Software listed in REDIST.TXT ("Redistributable Code"). For general redistribution requirements for Redistributable Code, see Section 3.1, below.
3. LICENSE RESTRICTIONS -- DISTRIBUTION REQUIREMENTS. If you choose to exercise your rights under Sectionÿ2, any redistribution by you is subject to your compliance with the following terms.
3.1 If you are authorized and choose to redistribute Sample Code or Redistributable Code (collectively, the "Redistributables") as described in Section 2, you agree: (i) except as otherwise noted in Section 2.1 (Sample Code) to distribute the Redistributables only in object code form and in conjunction with and as a part of a software application product developed by you that adds significant and primary functionality to the Redistributables ("Licensee Software"); (ii)ÿthat the Redi
Not to take away from this, but the vast, vast majority of a modern games size is art assets. The actual code size is generally tiny, even when you include the supporting libraries. Generating textures that look as good as the ones in the screenshots in code (and that little code, as well) is impressive, but it's not like this means that modern games are bloated per se.
It's simple - as a rule, the outcry is not against the fact that they're enforcing copyright, but that they're doing it in an egregiously offensive way. There's more to it, of course - like the horrible buisness practices, and the fact that the people really responsible for the creation of the music aren't the ones getting any money (say it had been SCO filing the suit in this case). More than that, there is a higher moral ground with most GPL folks - it's not the (often seen as) baser motive of "Hey, you're supposed to be giving me money", but it's an ideal - "We're giving this away for free and you can't even respect it enough to give back".
In summary - I have no problem with music (movie, game, etc) copyrights. I have no problem with people enforcing those copyrights. My problem is the tactics used, and the mentality of the enforcer. I don't like random buckshot-style lawsuits. I don't like fear and oppresion tactics. I don't like the legislative pressure for huge penalities far, far out of scope of the actual damage. I don't like the way they manipulate and occasionally outright lie about statistics for politcal capital. If someone started doing all those things in a purported attempt to enforce the GPL, I'd tell them to shove off too. When the ipfilters guys start portscanning servers looking for binaries of the linux kernel without source, then maybe it'll be the same thing.
You're totally correct that there certainly are lost sales, the issue is that the industry as a rule tends to vastly over-estimate those loses (at least in public). Some claims (like when they're citing damages) go so far as to claim that every downloaded track is a lost album sale, which is patently ridiculous.
EULAs basically don't work. Except in UCITA states, which explictly grant EULAs power (and I'm not sure how well those would stand up to Supreme Court scrutiny, either), they basically have power only because people people fear them. There's some argument that they constitute a contract, but I think thats questionable as there's no consideration. There's never been a major case that validated an EULA. US copyright law explicitly states that copying neccesary for functionality is fair use.
That said, just because an EULA is (probably) invalid doesn't mean that you can just share commercial software around - it's still protected under copyright (another reason why EULAs are stupid and should be abolished - copyright law provides all the protection a software company needs or deserves).
There was a case like the one you mentioned, but it was before the modifications to copyright law that explicity allowed copying to run.
Actually, copyright law does define a difference between infringing copyright for your own use and infringing copyright for the purpose of selling something - it's "more illegal" and there are greater penalties for selling an infringing copy than there are for giving away infringing copies to your friends. Whether it's for financial gain or not doesn't depend on what the copyright holder does, it depends on what the infringer does
As an aside, it's gray area under copyright law whether or not downloading from Kazaa is illegal. Distribution certainly is, but simply aquiring a copy may not be.
That said, the most common viewpoint, and mine as well, is not that the RIAA is evil for enforcing thier copyright, it's that they're evil for the means by which they're attempting to do it, the extent to which they claim damages, and the degree to which the influence legislation - the massively over-calculated penalties are exactly like the War on Drugs.
There was such a ruling but it was overridden when the Copyright Act of 1977 explicity exempted copying neccesary for use (such as to a hard drive for installation or to RAM for running) from copyright protectin.
You've got the answer right there in your post. Copyright reserves certain rights to the creator - any right not explicity granted by copyright law isn't granted. And even the rights that are granted are exempted. This conceptual difference is something that people like directors have a hard time comprehending, when they want to exercise "artistic control" over how people watch a movie in thier own home.
This limitation of the GPL is predicated on the idea that using a library makes your application a derived work of that library. I personally think this is questionable and may not hold up. If it does, however, then the GPL has all the power it needs.
The answer is yes, if and only if your program is a derived work of the GPLed program. Exactly what constitutes a derived work is very subjective and there are few hard and fast rules, and none at all for software. The EFF posts guidelines about what THEY consider a derived work (and, therefore, what they'd pursue as a case). I suspect that a patch that only worked when applied to a specific work and had no independent functionality would be considered a derived work by a court, but I'm not a lawyer.
It's perfectly possible for people to think that the RIAA is abusive while still respecting copyright without being hypocritical. If you weren't far more interested in waving a Slashthink flag than actually reading and analyzing posts you'd realize that. You'd also realize that there is more than one person posting on Slashdot and differing opinions in different stories are rather to be expected.
The terminology is not technically correct, but the idea is - you can analyze the packet and determine the port BEFORE normal protocol behavior occurs.
Wouldn't that mean that the limiting factor for fps is NOT the card but some other thing (processor, memory bandwidth) ?
No, it would mean the opposite of that. If you've got a system, and you change one thing, and only that one thing, then any differences afterward can only be because of that one thing. If the limiting factor wasn't in the card, then the 6800 would have had a similiar performance drop at higher resolution.
Qt has the mindshare. There are several alternatives, including:
FLTK, FOX, and my personal favorite, wxWidgets.
All of the above have LGPL or LGPL style licenses, and at least FLTK and wxWidgets have exceptions for static linking, so there should be very few licensing issues with them. There's probably more, but these the ones I know off the top of my head.
The Windows version is not released under the GPL. The only way to aquire it is to buy a license. There's also an educational version that ships with a book, but if you want it without buying the book you need to be a teacher/instructor in a classroom situation (it's an educational license, not a student discount).
You just don't listen enough:P There were huge protests against playboy, although they tend to focus on more extreme porn these days. And some feminists got a little peeved when alot of women decided that being empowered meant they could read playboy too.
Slashdot Mirror
As for XUL - as far as I'm aware, the only XUL-based application out there is Mozilla and XUL is tied very tightly to it - are there any XUL libraries for other, more native toolkits? There's at least a couple other XML based layout languages - wxWindows has one, Gtk has one, and I think Qt uses one now also. Whats the gain from XUL?
Well, any C++ (or C, for that matter, or any other language where you need to do explicit memory managment) will come up with similiar auto-deleting data structures very quickly. The design of C++ is such that writing them is very easy - this sort of paradigm is fundamental in C++ and it's one of the reason it's "better" than C - it's easier to write safer code. So it's actually very good C++ practice. However, someone who is just learning C++ should learn how to do it themselves, even if they've got a toolkit that does it for them. I can't help but think that you're misremembring the DDJ article/comment.
This is a ridiculous question - there's plenty of cross-platform OS applications. None of them use Qt, because you can't reasonably write cross platform, open source applications in Qt that target windows - anyone who wanted to use your app there would need a Qt license. So of course you don't see "demand" for cross platform apps if you're Trolltech - anyone who writes open source code with your toolkit has already given up on porting to Windows. People who want to write cross platform apps use other options.
Also, it's common at animation shops to coopt desktop CPUs when people aren't working - you'd either have to give this up or standardize the hardware/software in your renderfarm with the hardware/software the desktops use (which would be silly).
I did the same thing (except that I rememebered the sequence on the ATM, not on the keypad) and I locked out my card 3 times trying to use the online banking before I actually looked at the keypad and realized what was happening. Even stranger is that I used to do lots of data entry, so I can keypad without looking if I actually know the numbers.
Checking return values is a horrible use for exceptions. Exceptions are for critical but recoverable errors. "Normal" error conditions shouldn't throw exceptions, not least of which because it makes the code so much nastier and twisting to deal with it. Exceptions are great and allow you to do a type of error handling that would be impossible without them, but I think that some C++ (and especially Java) people get far to enamored of them.
The rental/hosting clause is for the software, not software you make with the software - you can't provide public compile farm services with it, for example.
There's suprisingly little in it, the vast majority of it is standard boilerplate. Only the first clause relates to what you can do with it, and it seems to limit you to personal use only (ie, no selling the binaries you create), but it's not explicit. The rest of it deals with standard redistributables (the C/C++ runtimes/STL) and standard waivers of liability, etc.
Presumably because it's distributed/sold in Quebec, theres a bunch of French at the end which, in the interests of space, I have snipped.
END-USER LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR MICROSOFT SOFTWARE
MICROSOFT VISUAL C++ TOOLKIT 2003
IMPORTANT-READ CAREFULLY: This End-User License Agreement ("EULA") is a legal agreement between you (either an individual or a single entity) and Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") for the Microsoft software that accompanies this EULA, which includes computer software and may include associated media, printed materials including best practices, white papers, templates, "online" or electronic documentation, and Internet-based services ("Software"). An amendment or addendum to this EULA may accompany the Software. YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE SOFTWARE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL, COPY, OR USE THE SOFTWARE.
MICROSOFT Software LICENSE
1. GRANTS OF LICENSE. Microsoft grants you the rights described in this EULA provided that you comply with all terms and conditions of this EULA.
1.1 General License Grant. Microsoft grants to you as an individual, a personal, nonexclusive license to make and use copies of the Software (i) for your internal use; (ii) for designing, developing, testing and demonstrating your software product(s); and (iii) for evaluation of the Software.
1.2 Documentation. You may make and use an unlimited number of copies of any documentation, provided that such copies shall be used only for personal internal purposes and are not to be republished or distributed (either in hard copy or electronic form) beyond your premises except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
2. ADDITIONAL LICENSE RIGHTS -- REDISTRIBUTABLES. In addition to the rights granted in Section 1, certain portions of the Software, as described in this Sectionÿ2, are provided to you with additional license rights. These additional license rights are conditioned upon your compliance with the distribution requirements and license restrictions described in Section 3.
2.1 Sample Code. Microsoft grants you the right to use and modify the source code version of those portions of the Software identified as "Samples" in REDIST.TXT or elsewhere in the Software ("Sample Code") for the sole purposes of designing, developing, and testing your software product(s), and to reproduce and distribute the Sample Code along with any modifications thereof, in object and/or source code form. For applicable redistribution requirements for Sample Code, see Section 3.1 below.
2.2 Redistributable Code-General. Microsoft grants you a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to reproduce and distribute the object code form of any portion of the Software listed in REDIST.TXT ("Redistributable Code"). For general redistribution requirements for Redistributable Code, see Section 3.1, below.
3. LICENSE RESTRICTIONS -- DISTRIBUTION REQUIREMENTS. If you choose to exercise your rights under Sectionÿ2, any redistribution by you is subject to your compliance with the following terms.
3.1 If you are authorized and choose to redistribute Sample Code or Redistributable Code (collectively, the "Redistributables") as described in Section 2, you agree: (i) except as otherwise noted in Section 2.1 (Sample Code) to distribute the Redistributables only in object code form and in conjunction with and as a part of a software application product developed by you that adds significant and primary functionality to the Redistributables ("Licensee Software"); (ii)ÿthat the Redi
Not to take away from this, but the vast, vast majority of a modern games size is art assets. The actual code size is generally tiny, even when you include the supporting libraries. Generating textures that look as good as the ones in the screenshots in code (and that little code, as well) is impressive, but it's not like this means that modern games are bloated per se.
In summary - I have no problem with music (movie, game, etc) copyrights. I have no problem with people enforcing those copyrights. My problem is the tactics used, and the mentality of the enforcer. I don't like random buckshot-style lawsuits. I don't like fear and oppresion tactics. I don't like the legislative pressure for huge penalities far, far out of scope of the actual damage. I don't like the way they manipulate and occasionally outright lie about statistics for politcal capital. If someone started doing all those things in a purported attempt to enforce the GPL, I'd tell them to shove off too. When the ipfilters guys start portscanning servers looking for binaries of the linux kernel without source, then maybe it'll be the same thing.
You're totally correct that there certainly are lost sales, the issue is that the industry as a rule tends to vastly over-estimate those loses (at least in public). Some claims (like when they're citing damages) go so far as to claim that every downloaded track is a lost album sale, which is patently ridiculous.
That said, just because an EULA is (probably) invalid doesn't mean that you can just share commercial software around - it's still protected under copyright (another reason why EULAs are stupid and should be abolished - copyright law provides all the protection a software company needs or deserves).
There was a case like the one you mentioned, but it was before the modifications to copyright law that explicity allowed copying to run.
As an aside, it's gray area under copyright law whether or not downloading from Kazaa is illegal. Distribution certainly is, but simply aquiring a copy may not be.
That said, the most common viewpoint, and mine as well, is not that the RIAA is evil for enforcing thier copyright, it's that they're evil for the means by which they're attempting to do it, the extent to which they claim damages, and the degree to which the influence legislation - the massively over-calculated penalties are exactly like the War on Drugs.
There was such a ruling but it was overridden when the Copyright Act of 1977 explicity exempted copying neccesary for use (such as to a hard drive for installation or to RAM for running) from copyright protectin.
You've got the answer right there in your post. Copyright reserves certain rights to the creator - any right not explicity granted by copyright law isn't granted. And even the rights that are granted are exempted. This conceptual difference is something that people like directors have a hard time comprehending, when they want to exercise "artistic control" over how people watch a movie in thier own home.
This limitation of the GPL is predicated on the idea that using a library makes your application a derived work of that library. I personally think this is questionable and may not hold up. If it does, however, then the GPL has all the power it needs.
The answer is yes, if and only if your program is a derived work of the GPLed program. Exactly what constitutes a derived work is very subjective and there are few hard and fast rules, and none at all for software. The EFF posts guidelines about what THEY consider a derived work (and, therefore, what they'd pursue as a case). I suspect that a patch that only worked when applied to a specific work and had no independent functionality would be considered a derived work by a court, but I'm not a lawyer.
It's perfectly possible for people to think that the RIAA is abusive while still respecting copyright without being hypocritical. If you weren't far more interested in waving a Slashthink flag than actually reading and analyzing posts you'd realize that. You'd also realize that there is more than one person posting on Slashdot and differing opinions in different stories are rather to be expected.
The terminology is not technically correct, but the idea is - you can analyze the packet and determine the port BEFORE normal protocol behavior occurs.
No, it would mean the opposite of that. If you've got a system, and you change one thing, and only that one thing, then any differences afterward can only be because of that one thing. If the limiting factor wasn't in the card, then the 6800 would have had a similiar performance drop at higher resolution.
All of the above have LGPL or LGPL style licenses, and at least FLTK and wxWidgets have exceptions for static linking, so there should be very few licensing issues with them. There's probably more, but these the ones I know off the top of my head.
In short: yes, it's different than Linux.
It's both, fair use provisions for copyright include protections for parody and satire.
The released source also uses Qt, so you'll need a Qt license if you want to compile this yourself on Windows.
You just don't listen enough :P There were huge protests against playboy, although they tend to focus on more extreme porn these days. And some feminists got a little peeved when alot of women decided that being empowered meant they could read playboy too.