Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #8331 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-12-23 19:03 -0800 |
| Last post | 2012-01-05 17:17 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 120 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-12-23 19:03 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-12-23 19:14 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-24 01:52 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-12-24 04:06 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-24 14:56 +0100
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2011-12-24 17:53 +0200
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-24 09:23 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-24 12:14 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-25 02:19 +0100
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Dennis Ruffer <daruffer@gmail.com> - 2011-12-25 12:58 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-25 23:53 +0100
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-25 13:25 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-26 00:10 +0100
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2011-12-25 22:36 +0200
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-26 00:09 +0100
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-12-28 08:36 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-12-27 09:43 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-27 09:56 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-12-27 11:08 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-12-27 22:38 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-27 22:01 -1000
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-12-28 02:20 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-12-28 12:12 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-28 14:15 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-28 23:56 +0100
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-28 15:07 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-28 11:11 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-27 22:01 +0100
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-12-28 11:11 +0100
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-28 13:57 +0100
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-29 11:00 +0000
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-12-28 08:39 -0800
GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-28 12:32 -0600
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-12-28 12:07 -0800
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-28 23:19 +0100
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2011-12-29 08:38 +0000
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-29 04:59 -0500
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-29 14:04 +0100
Re: GPL Aleksej Saushev <asau@inbox.ru> - 2011-12-30 00:12 +0400
Re: GPL cas_news@strotmann.de (Carsten Strotmann (Usenet)) - 2011-12-29 21:48 +0100
Re: GPL Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-29 23:50 +0100
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-29 18:00 -0500
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-30 01:38 +0100
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-30 13:46 -0500
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-30 22:58 +0100
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-31 21:20 -0500
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-01 01:46 -0800
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-01 04:43 -0600
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-01 16:45 +0100
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-01-01 08:19 -0800
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-30 04:13 -0600
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 11:15 -0800
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-29 18:07 -0500
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 16:21 -0800
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-30 01:43 +0100
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-29 23:55 -0800
Re: GPL cas_news@strotmann.de (Carsten Strotmann (Usenet)) - 2011-12-30 10:38 +0100
Re: GPL cas_news@strotmann.de (Carsten Strotmann (Usenet)) - 2011-12-30 11:12 +0100
Re: GPL anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-30 13:14 +0000
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-30 13:40 -0500
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-30 13:24 -0800
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-01-02 08:19 +0100
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-02 15:46 +0000
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201112.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-12-30 20:26 +0100
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Spam@ControlQ.com - 2012-01-01 14:45 -0500
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-01 12:28 -0800
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-01-02 02:03 -0500
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-30 12:33 +0000
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2011-12-30 17:30 -0800
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2011-12-30 17:07 +0000
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-29 04:26 -0600
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 11:00 -0800
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-30 12:18 +0000
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-28 12:49 -0800
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-29 04:37 -0600
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 11:09 -0800
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-30 04:21 -0600
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-29 13:53 +0000
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 11:58 -0800
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-30 11:05 +0000
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-30 13:54 -0800
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-01 11:51 +0000
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-01 12:33 -0800
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-02 10:33 +0000
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-02 11:40 -0800
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-01 12:37 -0800
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-02 10:36 +0000
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-02 14:27 +0100
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-05 04:08 -0800
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-05 17:40 +0100
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-05 04:59 -0800
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-05 09:49 -0600
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-05 07:56 -0800
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-30 14:00 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-12-28 10:33 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-28 11:30 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-12-28 15:28 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 11:49 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth jyf <jyf1987@gmail.com> - 2012-01-02 08:32 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-28 22:26 +0100
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-12-27 20:22 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-24 09:11 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-24 09:29 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Aleksej Saushev <asau@inbox.ru> - 2011-12-26 00:29 +0400
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Ian Osgood <iano@quirkster.com> - 2011-12-27 14:15 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> - 2011-12-27 16:29 -0600
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-12-27 21:10 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-29 23:46 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-12-31 16:41 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Trey Boudreau <trey.boudreau@gmail.com> - 2011-12-31 20:50 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-01 18:14 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Trey Boudreau <trey.boudreau@gmail.com> - 2012-01-01 21:33 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-01-02 01:57 -0500
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-02 04:45 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Trey Boudreau <trey.boudreau@gmail.com> - 2012-01-02 07:36 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-05 15:13 +0100
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Trey Boudreau <trey.boudreau@gmail.com> - 2012-01-05 13:15 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-05 16:19 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-05 16:22 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Trey Boudreau <trey.boudreau@gmail.com> - 2012-01-05 17:17 -0800
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-27 22:01 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <WY2dnX3ITIRXUWfTnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #8387 |
On 12/27/11 8:38 PM, Krishna Myneni wrote: > On Dec 27, 1:08 pm, John Passaniti<john.passan...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Dec 27, 12:56 pm, BruceMcF<agil...@netscape.net> wrote: >> >>> Its not entirely clear why developing in Forth with the >>> specified set of extensions at hand is not "Forth >>> development for mobile devices". >> >> I believe that at some point after extending Forth with extensions and >> application-specific words, you are no longer programming in Forth. >> And in this particular case, the set of extensions and application- >> specific words one would need to add to make it a *competitive* >> language for mobile app development would make the resulting language >> different from Forth in a number of important ways. >> >> In order for Forth to be competitive as a language in the mobile >> space, I presume it would have a number of features that "raw" Forth >> does not. These include: >> >> 1. An object system that respected the platform's object model. >> 2. Direct support for creating asynchronous, event-driven apps. >> 3. Garbage collection (primarily to support non-sequential, >> asynchronous flows). >> 4. Dynamic language features like typed values and generic data >> structures. >> >> The end result of what I consider a Forth-based competitive language >> for mobile development would look and work a lot less like traditional >> Forth and would be closer to Postscript or Factor. You are certainly >> free to call such a language Forth if you like, but I'd consider that >> next to meaningless. Forths adapt to the environment in which they're used. SwiftForth (and other Windows Forths) have #1 above, and every Forth I've worked with, dating back to the 70's has had #2. I'm not convinced as to the necessity for #s 3 & $, but I freely admit I haven't programmed mobile aps. I would call such a thing "a version of Forth adapted for ...". ... > Also, you seem to imply that Forth isn't well suited for use in highly > asynchronous, event-driven environments. I guess that would rule out > writing Windows and X-Windows apps in Forth... wait, that's been done > already (e.g., see Bernd's GUI development interface). "Highly asynchronous, event-driven environments" accurately describes the kind of applications for which Forth was originally developed, way back when. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-28 02:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7x8vlxq9p0.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #8389 |
"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes: >>> 1. An object system that respected the platform's object model. >>> 2. Direct support for creating asynchronous, event-driven apps. >>> 3. Garbage collection (primarily to support non-sequential, >>> asynchronous flows). >>> 4. Dynamic language features like typed values and generic data >>> structures. > > Forths adapt to the environment in which they're used. SwiftForth (and > other Windows Forths) have #1 above, and every Forth I've worked with, > dating back to the 70's has had #2. I'm not convinced as to the > necessity for #s 3 & $, but I freely admit I haven't programmed mobile > aps.... > > "Highly asynchronous, event-driven environments" accurately describes > the kind of applications for which Forth was originally developed, way > back when. There's tons of Forth OO libraries that handle #4, I'd expect. Wrapping them around mobile OS GUI widgets would be some work, of course. #3 (GC) is convenient but I've written enough desktop GUI code in C to know one can usually write in a style that doesn't need it. Does Objective-C even have it? I thought Objective-C was basically regular C plus a simple OO library wrapped with some syntax sugar. I'd think that by programming a multi-tasking Forth in an Erlang-like fashion (i.e. accepting the overhead of copying messages around instead of passing pointers) one could keep the memory allocation patterns simple enough to manage manually without much fuss. Also, I know that at least for gforth, there is a Boehm-style GC available
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-28 12:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <00d2cb8d-3c1a-4191-897d-baee911b3fd2@z1g2000vbx.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8390 |
On Dec 28, 5:20 am, Paul Rubin <no.em...@nospam.invalid> wrote: > There's tons of Forth OO libraries that handle #4, I'd expect. > Wrapping them around mobile OS GUI widgets would be some work, > of course. Of course. And that "some work" is the point. To be *competitive* as a development platform, that "some work" has to be done. > #3 (GC) is convenient but I've written enough desktop GUI code > in C to know one can usually write in a style that doesn't > need it. Yes, one can always manually manage memory, track exceptions, unwind call hierarchies, and with some amount of effort ensure that garbage is collected and finalizers are called. One can also defer all that to the runtime and not have to spend time working at such a low level and refocusing effort where it is better spent. > Does Objective-C even have it? Yes and no. Apple has it for desktop systems, but not for iOS devices. Writing iOS apps in Objective C is popular, but it isn't the only option. Our app is in Corona (which is based on Lua), and other popular choices for apps are Javascript and C# (using Mono). All three are garbage collected languages, and far more pleasant to work with. > I thought Objective-C was basically regular C plus a simple > OO library wrapped with some syntax sugar. Mostly. The extensions to C are simple to understand and useful. But it's really the libraries that provide the power and that is what you would want full access to for iOS development. For Android, you would want the same for Java. > Nobody I'd think that by programming a multi-tasking Forth in > an Erlang-like fashion (i.e. accepting the overhead of > copying messages around instead of passing pointers) one > could keep the memory allocation patterns simple enough to > manage manually without much fuss. [...] Depends on the complexity of the app. If you're writing the next fart app, you're all set. If your app involves complex mixtures of network messaging, timers, and random user interaction, the effort you'll spend on ensuring there won't be "much fuss" using manual methods is non-zero. Using a garbage collecting language means you focus on the parts of the app that matter and that differentiate you, not the plumbing. The question I keep raising here isn't if X is possible in Forth, but if X is *competitive* with other development tools. Answering that question is likely to lead to more insight into what mobile app developers want and need than saying, "it's possible in Forth."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-28 14:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <be1f340e-e0bf-447e-bdda-572482b6dee0@l24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8408 |
On Dec 28, 8:12 pm, John Passaniti <john.passan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Depends on the complexity of the app. If you're writing the next fart > app, you're all set. *Fart* app? I've scanned my keyboard for possible key fumbles, but nothing seems to fit...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-28 23:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jdg6rg$iav$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #8411 |
Alex McDonald wrote: > On Dec 28, 8:12 pm, John Passaniti <john.passan...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Depends on the complexity of the app. If you're writing the next >> fart app, you're all set. > > *Fart* app? I've scanned my keyboard for possible key fumbles, but > nothing seems to fit... Don't search your keyboard, search the app store. Or the Android market, I don't know how to search the app store... (at least 1000 search results): https://market.android.com/search?q=fart&c=apps I'd buy some onions and beans, and tell people that my new fart app even smells ;-). -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-28 15:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b4a2dcbe-82aa-4a78-9db5-80ea9b92bb97@q17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8413 |
On Dec 28, 10:56 pm, Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote: > Alex McDonald wrote: > > On Dec 28, 8:12 pm, John Passaniti <john.passan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Depends on the complexity of the app. If you're writing the next > >> fart app, you're all set. > > > *Fart* app? I've scanned my keyboard for possible key fumbles, but > > nothing seems to fit... > > Don't search your keyboard, search the app store. Or the Android > market, I don't know how to search the app store... (at least 1000 > search results): > > https://market.android.com/search?q=fart&c=apps > > I'd buy some onions and beans, and tell people that my new fart app even > smells ;-). > > -- > Bernd Paysan > "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"http://bernd-paysan.de/ Dear god, I thought I'd seen (and heard) it all. Interestingly, the character limit and use of ellipsis has given the second offering on that search some unintended humour; The Whoopee releases a horde of realistic fart sounds at the touch of a butt... Debugging one of these apps must be (and I really do apologise for the horrible double pun) a gas.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-28 11:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2a2e5946-73f1-4abf-a738-f1bf75eba975@o9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8370 |
On Dec 27, 2:08 pm, John Passaniti <john.passan...@gmail.com> wrote: > 1. An object system that respected the platform's object model. > 2. Direct support for creating asynchronous, event-driven apps. > 3. Garbage collection (primarily to support non-sequential, > asynchronous flows). > 4. Dynamic language features like typed values and generic data > structures. "When you've seen one Forth object system, you've just got started", but most of the existing models seem to me to be programming in Forth, and the fact that the object model is not built into the core model itself suggests the straightforward approach of respecting the platform's object model by loading an object system that respects the platform's object model. Direct support for creating asynchronous event-drive apps have been a feature of Forth implementations since the 1980's. Whether they have had to include garbage collection for some data structures seems to have depended on whether the application as written leaves garbage to be collected. As far as the benefit of (4) in Rapid Application Development, I'll let more experienced programmers argue through ~ for the kind of stuff where I'd be programming a back-end in Forth, its not a big issue.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-27 22:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jddbni$nk$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #8366 |
John Passaniti wrote: > But to be fair, Apple doesn't have a problem with all free software-- > they have a problem with free software with viral licenses that would > cause them to have to release source for their proprietary code. Oh, John, that's bullshit, and you know it. No "viral license" free software requires to release the source of independently developed software, as the "viral license" uses copyright to get into that position. The GPL, one particular prominent example of a so-called "viral license" (a political term from Microsoft, which nobody in their right mind should use without quotation marks) is even very explicit that you are allowed to link your GPL program to libraries and other parts that are commonly shipped with the operating system to run on, even when those libraries are not open sourced. Apple actually uses GPL'd software in their products, including a very central part in iOS, that's webkit. Ok, it's LGPL, because webkit is a library, but inside that library, the LGPL is just as "viral" as any other GPL. I don't like the term "viral" at all. A virus, in software terminology, is a kind of malware, attaching itself to other, independent programs. No license can do that. It's attached to the original program, and it can only give permissions. When something is viral, i.e. has malware- like characteristics, then it is copyright itself. The proprietary licenses usually deny third parties all rights except running the program, and therefore, they must by definition be worse than any GPL'd software. The GPL gives you rights, but when you use these rights, it requires you that you release the source code of the additions and modifications you made to that program, i.e. these rights are transitive, you can't take them away by modifying the program. Also, what pisses Apple off is that they want monopoly power over distributing apps to iOS devices (their App store). This conflicts with free software, as anybody is allowed to redistribute it (regardless if "viral" or not). What they might be concerned about is that as app store provider, they are redistributing the software, and therefore have to care about availability of the source code, maybe in the outdated way the GPLv2 describes it. However, nobody today wants a CD or tape with the software, everybody wants a link to some version control repository. Therefore, nobody will complain if they can provide that link. They can check if the source code provided by the maintainers actually is the source code they ship, and remove the app from the store once that is no longer the case. > Apple *was* unnecessarily grandiose and had said that applications > couldn't use interpreters (other than their own Javascript > implementation in WebKit). But that ended shortly after it was > pointed out that a best-selling game for iOS that Steve Jobs held up > at a keynote address was written in Lua. And not long after that, > other developers of best-selling apps who were using a variety of > other interpreted languages asked for clarification. It was kind of > hard for Apple to keep their no-interpreter-besides-ours stance after > apps they showcased were found to be written in interpreted languages. But that takes out most of the fun of having an interpreter. Let's take my net2o as example, which I'm working on currently: The basic network layer contains an interpreter where you send commands back and forth to make the communication work (flow control, retransmission, acknowledges, file requests: all those are commands of a Forth-like virtual machine there). The commands are constructed in an ad-hoc manner. So even without the higher level parts of net2o (which aren't written yet, but the plan certainly is to have a dynamic interpretive language in its core), this is a no-go for iOS devices. Of course, I'm using Gforth to write this, i.e. one of these dreadful viral licenses, which brings you the smallpox or at least lets you grow a beard and long hair like RMS (Andrew Haley and Peter Knaggs are also known to be infected ;-). > Regardless, anyone who thinks that Forth development for mobile > devices is a good idea probably hasn't written a non-trivial app for a > mobile device. What would make more sense is to develop a variant of > Forth that embraced the fundamental qualities of mobile platforms such > as being dynamic, event-based, highly asynchronous in their > structure. And you want to be able to access native libraries > (especially the UI libraries) in some sensible way. I can easily see > an augmented Forth for such platforms working well for developers. Hm, Forth can be quite dynamic, and wherever I used in embedded programming or GUI programming, I always resorted to event-based execution, which is highly asynchronous. Using native libraries is a little problem in Gforth on these platforms, as there is no gcc to compile the glue code - but that's just a little problem, not a big one. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-28 11:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <2910db6c25777c2d0e3ce3eb9bc6d9fe@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #8376 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote: > position. The GPL, one particular prominent example of a so-called > "viral license" (a political term from Microsoft, which nobody in their > right mind should use without quotation marks) Why not? That's exactly what the GPL is. It infects whatever it touches to be GPL. It is a viral license indeed that's a very apt description. > is even very explicit that you are allowed to link your GPL program to > libraries and other parts that are commonly shipped with the operating > system to run on, even when those libraries are not open sourced. That is only for LGPL, not GPL. > I don't like the term "viral" at all. A virus, in software terminology, > is a kind of malware, attaching itself to other, independent programs. > No license can do that. What? That's exactly what the GPL does! It's viral and it's malware. > software. The GPL gives you rights, but when you use these rights, it > requires you that you release the source code of the additions and > modifications you made to that program, i.e. these rights are > transitive, you can't take them away by modifying the program. Nonsense, the GPL doesn't give anyone rights. It simply forces you to open source whatever GPL infects.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-28 13:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jdf3no$m9e$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #8392 |
Nomen Nescio wrote: > Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote: > >> position. The GPL, one particular prominent example of a so-called >> "viral license" (a political term from Microsoft, which nobody in >> their right mind should use without quotation marks) > > Why not? That's exactly what the GPL is. It infects whatever it > touches to be GPL. It is a viral license indeed that's a very apt > description. Nonononono. Copyright is viral. Whenever you combine copyrighted work, you need permission. It's not about touching, it's about combining. You plan and simply can't do that under copyright law, so you need permission. The permission of transitive free software licenses (there are several) is that you can do that when you put the combined work under the original license of the parts. Apparently it is too complicated to make these licenses compatible with each others, because anglo-saxonian contract law is broken by design. The more premissive licenses (i.e. the ones who basically abandon copyright at all) allow you to relicense your work under something else. People use that to take it out of the free software world into the proprietary, secretive world. Now, that's what I would say is "viral". The healthy sharing and improving ability dies, and the software gets the smallpox - look at the Carrier IQ example ;-). >> is even very explicit that you are allowed to link your GPL program >> to libraries and other parts that are commonly shipped with the >> operating system to run on, even when those libraries are not open >> sourced. > > That is only for LGPL, not GPL. No, that's the GPL. Read it, search for "system libraries". The LGPL additionally allows applications to link against it. > What? That's exactly what the GPL does! It's viral and it's malware. And you are a troll. > Nonsense, the GPL doesn't give anyone rights. It simply forces you to > open source whatever GPL infects. The GPL gives you four freedoms, freedoms you don't have if it was plain simply copyrighted like all the fine proprietary software trolls like you love and cheerish. I understand that selfish dumbasses don't understand the golden rule, and therefore can't comprehend that it's not all their own, and that they can't take without giving back. That's why the GPL is necessary. If you want to be a slave, you probably love the chains they put on your ankles. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-29 11:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lwyp8h.fnb@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #8392 |
In article <2910db6c25777c2d0e3ce3eb9bc6d9fe@dizum.com>, Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote: >Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote: > >> position. The GPL, one particular prominent example of a so-called >> "viral license" (a political term from Microsoft, which nobody in their >> right mind should use without quotation marks) > >Why not? That's exactly what the GPL is. It infects whatever it touches to >be GPL. It is a viral license indeed that's a very apt description. No it isn't. That is the intention of the gut feeling you're supposed to get by the spin doctors of Microsoft. Note that the propaganda budget of Microsoft is of the same order of magnitude as the government propaganda spent to promote the Third Reich. Now I leave it to you to judge if such budget is sufficient to infect people with lies. The budget is more effectively spent if accompagnied with some arm twisting. You better do some soul searching to find out whether you have been infected with lies. For example try to imagine where the hell that billion dollar budget of last year have flown. Try to answer the question, has the propaganda been accompagnied by some arm twisting? <SNIP> >Nonsense, the GPL doesn't give anyone rights. It simply forces you to open >source whatever GPL infects. You forget the IANAL. This is technically so far from the truth that you better not leave the IANAL out. Groetjes Albert -- -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-28 08:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1c5e333c-d04f-4492-bc3c-116532c7706c@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8376 |
On Dec 27, 4:01 pm, Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote: > John Passaniti wrote: > > But to be fair, Apple doesn't have a problem with all > > free software-- they have a problem with free software > > with viral licenses that would cause them to have to > > release source for their proprietary code. > > Oh, John, that's bullshit, and you know it. No "viral license" > free software requires to release the source of independently > developed software, as the "viral license" uses copyright to > get into that position. [...] Regardless of your knee-jerk issues with the phrase "viral license," the fact is that Apple's "iOS Developer Program License Agreement" makes the following statements about FOSS used as part of the applications. 1. You as a developer have to comply with the FOSS license terms. 2. You will not use FOSS in such a way that would cause non-FOSS code from Apple to be subject to any FOSS licensing terms or obligations. 3. Your application will be consistent with Apple's digital signing and content protection (that is, DRM) procedures and technologies. 4. Any pre-release software from Apple is considered confidential, except any FOSS Apple itself includes that does not impose additional confidentiality obligations regarding use or disclosure of that FOSS. That's it. Item 1 is boilerplate and non-controversial. Item 2 is the issue we're talking about, and if you honestly believe there doesn't exist now (or ever would exist) any FOSS licensing terms on the planet that would provoke the situation, then it's a non-issue that we can all ignore. Item 3 is likely provoked by GPLv3, which has (or at least had) placed restrictions regarding the use of DRM-- an issue that Linux Torvalds explicitly cited as *one* of the reasons why he isn't moving the Linux kernel to GPLv3. And Item 4... I'm not entirely sure what the concern is there, but again, if you honestly believe it could never happen, then it can safely be ignored. > The GPL, one particular prominent example of a so-called > "viral license" (a political term from Microsoft, which > nobody in their right mind should use without quotation > marks) is even very explicit that you are allowed to link > your GPL program to libraries and other parts that are > commonly shipped with the operating system to run on, > even when those libraries are not open sourced. Bzzzt. First, talking about the GPL as a single thing is sloppy. There are a family of licenses that are collectively called "GPL" and these have a variety of different restrictions and obligations. In particular, the relevant restrictions and obligations in question occur when non-FOSS is compiled within or statically linked to the executable itself and those are different between GPLv2 and GPLv3. iOS developers can choose to statically link Apple's non-FOSS libraries to their application. In that case, depending on which GPL license you're using, I can certainly see how both GPLv2 and GPLv3 could compel Apple to release source code if Apple didn't explicitly forbid such in their developer license agreement. If you disagree, you are invited to point me to any authoritative statement from the GPL folk (not your interpretation, but their words) which says this can't happen. You're also free to show me that no future version of the GPL or other FOSS license could ever place such obligations on Apple. But really, it boils down to this: You made the statement that Apple has a "knee-jerk" policy regarding FOSS. I don't exactly know what precisely "knee-jerk" means, but if it means that Apple disallows or discourages FOSS from being used in their iOS products, I have yet to see it. It may be fair to say that Apple (and Microsoft and others) have a big problem with *specific* FOSS licenses. It is not fair to say that Apple (and Microsoft and others) have issues with *all* FOSS licenses. In particular, they don't seem to have any problem-- as reflected in policy or license restriction-- with the so-called "permissive FOSS licenses" like MIT and BSD. > I don't like the term "viral" at all. That's nice. I'd get more out of this discussion if instead of a discourse on phrases you don't like, you stick to both your original claims and the substance of my reply. > Also, what pisses Apple off is that they want monopoly power > over distributing apps to iOS devices (their App store). This > conflicts with free software, as anybody is allowed to > redistribute it (regardless if "viral" or not). Yep, and I certainly don't defend Apple for that. The restrictions they place even on developers regarding distribution of applications used internally for testing are painful and in my opinion, stupid. > What they might be concerned about is that as app store provider, > they are redistributing the software, and therefore have to care > about availability of the source code, maybe in the outdated > way the GPLv2 describes it. However, nobody today wants a CD or > tape with the software, everybody wants a link to some version > control repository. Therefore, nobody will complain if they > can provide that link. [...] For GPLv3, yep-- and the GNU FAQ talks about this. For GPLv2, the "outdated way they describe it" still applies for GPLv2-licensed FOSS. But again, if you disagree, please provide a link to some authoritative source (not your opinion). > But that takes out most of the fun of having an interpreter. It's worse than taking fun out; it potentially affects usability and correctness. In the apps that the company I work for is interested in developing, we have a set of data structures (represented as Lua tables) that describe our systems' capabilities and the communications protocol used to talk to them. Given that we're human and make mistakes, we thought it would be cool if when we found problems in those data structures, we could have the iOS device download from our web site updated capability and protocol description data structures. But Apple forbids this; we're free to interpret these data structures at run-time, but they have to be part of the app. Grrr.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-28 12:32 -0600 |
| Subject | GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] |
| Message-ID | <ybednQU2Y7JF_WbTnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #8397 |
John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> wrote: > iOS developers can choose to statically link Apple's non-FOSS > libraries to their application. In that case, depending on which > GPL license you're using, I can certainly see how both GPLv2 and > GPLv3 could compel Apple to release source code if Apple didn't > explicitly forbid such in their developer license agreement. If you can see how a third party linking Apple's libraries to their own code would cause Apple to have to release source code, please tell us. I can't see it at all. > If you disagree, you are invited to point me to any authoritative > statement from the GPL folk (not your interpretation, but their > words) which says this can't happen. And you are invited to explain how it *can* happen. As far as I can see the third party would be in breach of the GPL (2 or 3), and would have to desist from shipping their software. Apple wouldn't be a party to the GPL violation. How is it possible for the actions of a third party to compel you to release your code? Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-28 12:07 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] |
| Message-ID | <2aefef68-2340-48b5-920f-f71d5c10a2ce@o14g2000vbo.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8400 |
On Dec 28, 1:32 pm, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > If you can see how a third party linking Apple's libraries > to their own code would cause Apple to have to release > source code, please tell us. I can't see it at all. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs I interpret that as saying that if I create an executable that includes GPL code (my own code and/or other's code) *and* also statically links to non-FOSS code (such as system libraries from Apple), I need to get permission to release the source code from each of the copyright holders of the non-FOSS code. Apple isn't going to provide that permission. One central question here is if application libraries that are statically linked to an executable qualify as "system libraries." I don't know the answer to that, but implicitly it seems that Apple believes it is possible that such code (and possibly other code) might not qualify. > > If you disagree, you are invited to point me to any authoritative > > statement from the GPL folk (not your interpretation, but their > > words) which says this can't happen. > > And you are invited to explain how it *can* happen. No, it doesn't work that way. I'm not responsible for reaching into the mind of Richard Stallman and friends and working out whatever rational, subjective, reasoned, or arcane thought processes go into their licenses. They are the ones with the license and they are the ones with legal muscle behind them who will defend the terms of their license if they feel it is violated. I am not a lawyer, not an expert in copyright law, and not someone who even gives a damn. I typically run screaming away from all this monstrous complexity and interpretation and worry and run into the warm and welcoming arms of permissive licenses that are simpler, far less subjective, and let me spend my time developing software and not reading licenses. > As far as I can see the third party would be in breach of the > GPL (2 or 3), and would have to desist from shipping their > software. Apple wouldn't be a party to the GPL violation. > How is it possible for the actions of a third party to compel > you to release your code? I don't know. That is the claim that has been made by others who study this more seriously than I do. Merely saying that you don't see the mechanism doesn't mean it doesn't exist or couldn't exist. If the GPL (pick a version) can't possibly be used in situations like the one being discussed (GPL'ed code statically linked to non-FOSS application libraries), then there should be a clear and objective statement that (1) makes unambiguous if application libraries fall under the "system library exception" and (2) that such a situation is nonsense and doesn't apply. Alternatively, if there is an existing decision by the GNU folk that is substantially similar to the situation described here (or other related situations) that says there is no worry, then that would also be acceptable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-28 23:19 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] |
| Message-ID | <jdg4la$gq0$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #8407 |
John Passaniti wrote: > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs > > I interpret that as saying that if I create an executable that > includes GPL code (my own code and/or other's code) *and* also > statically links to non-FOSS code (such as system libraries from > Apple), I need to get permission to release the source code from each > of the copyright holders of the non-FOSS code. Apple isn't going to > provide that permission. > > One central question here is if application libraries that are > statically linked to an executable qualify as "system libraries." I > don't know the answer to that, but implicitly it seems that Apple > believes it is possible that such code (and possibly other code) might > not qualify. The answer to the question is fairly trivial. Is the library part of iOS, as installed on the device (it then is probably a shared library)? Is it part of Xcode, the development environemnt used to create iOS Apps (you then probably do a static link)? If yes, it is a system library. If Apple fears that some library or other might not qualify, it's because their lawyers are busy photoshopping competitors' products so that they look more similar to iOS devices, instead of giving advice to their team. > I typically > run screaming away from all this monstrous complexity and > interpretation and worry and run into the warm and welcoming arms of > permissive licenses that are simpler, far less subjective, and let me > spend my time developing software and not reading licenses. The GPL is rather simple (and yes, there is only one GPL, the versions do not change the intention, they only change the legal text). The law is complex, as it is anglo-saxonian law, which does not give a shit about intent and principles, but wants it expressed like a computer program. The GPL is the four freedoms. That's it. It's a single sentence in the preamble. That's the GPL, that's all you as non-lawyer have to obey and think about. Can the receiver of the code redistribute, study and modify your program, and does he know about this? If he can, you follow the GPL. If he can't, you don't. Or you are a lawyer and found a loophole in the long legal part of the GPL. Ah, and you are victim of FUD sprayed against the GPL. The MS EULA is a monstrous complex beast where you should worry about your firstborn child if you don't read it. The GPL has no such nonsense. As long as you enable your receivers to have the four freedoms, there is nothing to worry about. It's the cases where you want to take these freedoms away where you have to worry, because usually the GPL says "no", and maybe there's some loophole, because the GPL legal text is too old to cover that abuse (like DRM and signatures and such). I suppose Apple uses something like signatures to prevent people installing apps from outside the app store. And a developer account can only install self-compiled apps on the devices associated with that developer account. It's not like Android, where you have your checkbox in the settings which activate third-party apps. You have to jailbreak your iPhone to get there. Given how popular jailbroken iPhones are, I'd probably say that it's ok for an open source app to say "your phone must be jailbroken". Quite a number of open source Android apps require a rooted device, which is more or less the same. > I don't know. That is the claim that has been made by others who > study this more seriously than I do. Merely saying that you don't see > the mechanism doesn't mean it doesn't exist or couldn't exist. If the > GPL (pick a version) can't possibly be used in situations like the one > being discussed (GPL'ed code statically linked to non-FOSS application > libraries), then there should be a clear and objective statement that > (1) makes unambiguous if application libraries fall under the "system > library exception" and (2) that such a situation is nonsense and > doesn't apply. Alternatively, if there is an existing decision by the > GNU folk that is substantially similar to the situation described here > (or other related situations) that says there is no worry, then that > would also be acceptable. There is no easy answer to that, because the world is complicated. Remember Windows 95? When you installed MS Office on it, a whole bunch of system libraries were updated by the Office install, because they were so buggy that Office wouldn't run on an unpatched Windows 95. Microsoft however did not bother to fix Windows 95 itself with a service pack or such, Office was that service pack. Would Windows 95 with MS Office installed qualify as "operating system"? I would have some doubts, especially when you do this static linking thing, i.e. you as developer have such a system with Office installed, and you ship your binary plus source to some third party who does not have Office installed, and thinks Windows 95 is the operating system, and can't rebuild your program from the sources you delivered. The easy part is: if your static library comes with either the OS or the development system as is, without anything strange, then it is a system library. I must say that in the beginning (with the App store), Apple was very strongly opposed both against interpreters and against free software (copylefted software). They had to backpedal almost completely on the interpreter issue, and they also had to significantly backpedal on the free software front.¹ I have the same feelings here as you have towards GPL'd software, I simply dare not to touch this ecosystem, this is too unfriendly for me, too dictatoric, too much at whim of whoever in the App store system decides. ¹) Note: Most of 2010, I was working for a supplyer for Apple, working on a battery monitoring system. I had a bigForth program to visualize the battery charging and discharging cycles. The people at Apple liked this program, and they said "we would like to have that as an app". My response was that a) it was written in an interpreter, and b) the interpreter was free software, so nooooo way. Soon after I said that, the app store restrictions on interpreters as such were lifted, and also the free software ban was converted into the restrictions as above. Still too strict for my taste, but a step in the right direction. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-29 08:38 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] |
| Message-ID | <jdh8u3$ec1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #8407 |
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 12:07:43 -0800, John Passaniti wrote: > I interpret that as saying that if I create an executable that includes > GPL code (my own code and/or other's code) *and* also statically links > to non-FOSS code (such as system libraries from Apple), I need to get > permission to release the source code from each of the copyright holders > of the non-FOSS code. Apple isn't going to provide that permission. If this were true, it would be impossible to use the GPL on Windows applications. I believe the reverse is true -- you can't distribute closed-source excutables/libraries which have static links to GPL'd binaries. If you link to GPL software, your software must also be distributed under the GPL. This is precisely why the LGPL was created. Cheers, Arnold
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-29 04:59 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] |
| Message-ID | <jdhdiq$78l$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #8418 |
"Arnold Doray" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote in message news:jdh8u3$ec1$1@dont-email.me... > On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 12:07:43 -0800, John Passaniti wrote: > > > I interpret that as saying that if I create an executable that includes > > GPL code (my own code and/or other's code) *and* also statically links > > to non-FOSS code (such as system libraries from Apple), I need to get > > permission to release the source code from each of the copyright holders > > of the non-FOSS code. Apple isn't going to provide that permission. > > If this were true, it would be impossible to use the GPL on Windows > applications. > I'm not sure of the correct answer, but it may be dynamic linking, i.e., no static linking between GPL and proprietary operating system code or libraries ... > I believe the reverse is true -- you can't distribute closed-source > excutables/libraries which have static links to GPL'd binaries. If you > link to GPL software, your software must also be distributed under the > GPL. This is precisely why the LGPL was created. > LGPL is always touted as the solution to these issues. History has proven otherwise. The basic premise of the LGPL is sound except for one critical license term which nullifies it's premise entirely. Let's disregard the fact that Stallman and/or the FSF is trying to kill off all LGPL code with GPLv3. Let's also disregard Stallman's encoding of his clearly socialist political beliefs in a FOSS license. Let's also disregard the fact that the FOSS is killing the commercial market for programmers and leaving them without jobs or food. A huge part of the problem with the LGPL is that LGPL code can be converted to GPL code at will. That's the critical license term that is killing the LGPL. I.e., the license terms for the LGPL'd source can be changed by a third party without the original copyright holder's permission. The third party can change the license terms to the more restrictive GPL license terms. License "rebranding" is a huge negative for a supposedly FOSS license. Another part of the problem with the LGPL is that the biggest library claiming to be LGPL, i.e., GNU's own GLIBC, is not purely LGPL, so the entire GLIBC library must be treated as GPL'd, instead of LGPL'd, to prevent license non-compliance. There is a bunch of strictly GPLv2 code in the supposedly LGPL'd GLIBC. There is also a bunch of non-GPL, copyrighted and licensed, FOSS code in there too. That's why there are three (3) license files are included with GLIBC: COPYING, COPYING.LIB, and LICENSES. COPYING.LIB is the LGPL for much of the code in the library. COPYING is for the strictly GPL files in the library. LICENSES includes the FOSS licenses for the six (6) other copyright holders besides GNU ... You read that correctly: SIX! This is major FOSS license "pollution". AIUI, because GLIBC is not purely LGPL, all current non-Unix/Linux/POSIX ports of the GCC compiler use their own, non-GPL, custom C library, e.g., DJGPP, MinGW, CygWin. AIR, (Hey, I looked up GLIBC ...) the GCC compiler has some license exceptions preventing violations of it's GPL terms in non-GPL situations. A huge part of the problem with GPL is that it does not have far less rectrictive license terms like other major FOSS licenses, e.g., BSD or MIT. Another huge part of the problem with the GPL is that the original copyright holder is not required to forfit their copyrights, or is not prohibited from claiming copyrights at a later time. The original copyright holder can close source the code at a later date. The only real solution to most of the FOSS license issues is to eliminate the issue of copyright entirely, i.e., Public Domain, but that apparently is not recognized as a legal solution everywhere and is supposedly legally untested even in the USA. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-29 14:04 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] |
| Message-ID | <jdhog6$umt$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #8419 |
Rod Pemberton wrote: > Let's also disregard the fact that the > FOSS is killing the commercial market for programmers and leaving them > without jobs or food. Let's disregard that RedHat managed to cross the 1 billion dollar revenue in 2011. No job, no food? I'm sure with a 1 billion dollar revenue, food supply for people who work at RedHat can't be that bad; the last RH employee I saw, appeared to be well fed (that was Andrew Haley). They do that entirely with open source software, of which a significant portion and the core of RedHat's business model is GPL software. What's true is that the LGPL provides an "additional permission" which can be taken away by the next contributor (it cannot be retroactively be taken away from the original distribution, if you fear that - you may pass it on without the LGPL permissions, but anybody who wants still can get the LGPL'd sources from the original author, and the GPL is very clear that the license is between you and the original authors, not with some man-in-the-middle). This possible removal is necessary to make it possible to mix LGPL with GPL programs, it's a compatibility issue - if it wasn't there, the LGPL would be GPL-incompatible, and that would be really, really bad. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Aleksej Saushev <asau@inbox.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-30 00:12 +0400 |
| Subject | Re: GPL |
| Message-ID | <87pqf7p279.fsf@inbox.ru> |
| In reply to | #8424 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes: > Rod Pemberton wrote: >> Let's also disregard the fact that the >> FOSS is killing the commercial market for programmers and leaving them >> without jobs or food. > > Let's disregard that RedHat managed to cross the 1 billion dollar > revenue in 2011. Have you got any other example besides RedHat? How many of them? Bringing extremely rare exception to example doesn't prove anything. Besides, what is the structure of revenue? Does it come from programming or from system administration? -- HE CE3OH...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cas_news@strotmann.de (Carsten Strotmann (Usenet)) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-29 21:48 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: GPL |
| Message-ID | <87oburxfxb.fsf@csgate4.strotmann.de> |
| In reply to | #8437 |
Aleksej Saushev <asau@inbox.ru> writes: > Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes: > >> Rod Pemberton wrote: >>> Let's also disregard the fact that the >>> FOSS is killing the commercial market for programmers and leaving them >>> without jobs or food. >> >> Let's disregard that RedHat managed to cross the 1 billion dollar >> revenue in 2011. > > Have you got any other example besides RedHat? How many of them? > Bringing extremely rare exception to example doesn't prove anything. > > Besides, what is the structure of revenue? Does it come from programming > or from system administration? Well, I make a good living around open source software with training and some programming. I also know a good number of companies that also make good money with open source software: * Univention: http://www.univention.de/ * MariaDB (and previously MySQL DB): http://askmonty.org/ * Freiheit.com: http://www.freiheit.com/ (with bookzilla.de one of the main sponsors of FSFe) * LinuxHotel: linuxhotel.de (Open Source Training) * PowerDNS - got successful after open-sourcing a former closed source product (www.powerdns.com) * Internet Systems Consortium - BIND and ISC DHCPd, among other software * NlNetLabs * Zimbra * Mozilla * Canonical (Ubuntu Linux) * Digium (Asterisk PBX) ..... the list goes on and on. There is as much money on open source software than there is in closed source. It just needs some nderstanding of the customers needs and a slightly different mindset. -- Carsten
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web