View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Bradley Smith
Joined: 20 Jun 2006 Posts: 60
|
Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:25 am Post subject: GLD, native D replacement for GLFW |
|
|
GLD is a native D port of GLFW. It works on Windows and Linux, but has only been minimally tested using the example programs included.
By default, GLD directly links to OpenGL libraries. However, on Windows, it can optionally use the Derelict bindings for OpenGL. In the future, Derelict compatiblity may also be available on Linux.
GLD can be downloaded from http://www.baysmith.com/d/gld.zip
Since GLD is a direct port of GLFW, no documentation is provided. Instead, use the GLFW documentation. Simply subsitute gld for glfw and GLD for GLFW where necessary. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
clayasaurus
Joined: 21 May 2004 Posts: 857
|
Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Are you going to start up a dsource project? or are you leaving this for others to develop more. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bradley Smith
Joined: 20 Jun 2006 Posts: 60
|
Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 1:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've made a request for a dsource.org project. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
elmindreda
Joined: 22 Nov 2006 Posts: 5 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you for making a port of GLFW to the D language. That's very cool, and it's always nice to see people make use of the code.
However, by removing the copyright and license headers from the source files originating from GLFW, you have violated its license. Please correct this. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bradley Smith
Joined: 20 Jun 2006 Posts: 60
|
Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 1:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
According to the GLFW license,
Quote: | 3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution. |
This requirement is not violated. The GLFW license is included Credits section of the GLD readme.txt file. The GLD readme.txt will be included in every source distribution. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
elmindreda
Joined: 22 Nov 2006 Posts: 5 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bradley Smith wrote: | This requirement is not violated. The GLFW license is included Credits section of the GLD readme.txt file. The GLD readme.txt will be included in every source distribution. |
Then we're interpreting the licence differently. The way I see it, you have removed the license from each source file. Additionally, there is currently no way of determining from your distribution which files originated in GLFW and which are created by you, except by dowloading GLFW and comparing file contents. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
elmindreda
Joined: 22 Nov 2006 Posts: 5 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
elmindreda wrote: | The way I see it, you have removed the license from each source file. |
Err, removed the notice. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
JJR
Joined: 22 Feb 2004 Posts: 1104
|
Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is unfortunate. After reading the notice again, it could indeed be interpreted either way. It's sad that the license wasn't clear on this. Furthermore, the menton of "source distribution" makes the intent even more unclear such that I understand why Bradley felt he was meeting the requirements . It would have been very simple to indicate "source headers" here if that was the intent.
Gld, in its current form, however does make it extremely easy to grab certain source files and repackage it without any way to trace where it came from. Even a small header might be adviseable, as a courtesy, pointing to the origin of the package and crediting the original glfw. Granted anyone could remove that, but that would require more concerted effort.
Note that DerelictGLFW removed the license because it was not redistributing a source distribution: it merely used a header mapping. I believe any complete port has to follow different rules in this matter.
That said, I think it would be a good idea to figure out a way to identify source files with a small header that gives the appropriate credit. It would be good if it makes a reference to readme.txt in the package ("for further reference").
Just a suggestion.
-JJR |
|
Back to top |
|
|
clayasaurus
Joined: 21 May 2004 Posts: 857
|
Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Could you simply have a comment like...
/// see readme.txt for license details
in each header file? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aldacron
Joined: 05 May 2004 Posts: 1322 Location: Seoul, South Korea
|
Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
elmindreda wrote: | elmindreda wrote: | The way I see it, you have removed the license from each source file. |
Err, removed the notice. |
I agree with Bradley on this. The header in each source file is a copy-paste of the text in license.txt. I interpret "source distribution" as the complete package, of all of the source files, from which the modified work was derived. To me, that's a clear and literal phrase with no ambiguity: source distribution != source file. As long as license.txt is included, requirement number 3 is met.
Of course, the way to settle the matter is to contact Marcus directly and determine his interpretation. _________________ The One With D | The One With Aldacron | D Bits |
|
Back to top |
|
|
JJR
Joined: 22 Feb 2004 Posts: 1104
|
Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
I believe the decision is up to elmindreda now since Marcus gave the project up.
The fault appears to remain the result of imprecise wording of the license. Adding credits to the source headers might be a nice touch but that likely doesn't accomplish much from the maintainer's perpective, if the license is the issue?
-JJR |
|
Back to top |
|
|
elmindreda
Joined: 22 Nov 2006 Posts: 5 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
JJR wrote: | I believe the decision is up to elmindreda now since Marcus gave the project up. |
Yes, and the license is the standard zlib/libpng one, not something Marcus wrote.
JJR wrote: | The fault appears to remain the result of imprecise wording of the license. Adding credits to the source headers might be a nice touch but that likely doesn't accomplish much from the maintainer's perpective, if the license is the issue? |
Agreed. Keeping the edit credits is absolutely not required by any interpretation of the license, although I'm of course neither the creator nor by far the only contributor to the library, so I'm sad to see them go.
However, regardless of where the license is written, I foresee a problem in that there's currently no way of telling which files are under whose copyright.
In any case, I'm not out to make a nuisanse of myself, and I applaud the work that Bradley Smith has done. However, I do know that obfuscating the origins of code on a file level is a Bad Thing, as many projects have discovered. It's a simple thing to remedy and will potentially save the GLD project a lot of trouble further on.
As for whose intepretation of the license is correct, IANAL, but it might be possible to ask the SFLC about that. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|