From: Richard Lyman <lymans@...>
Date: 2004-08-06T03:36:12+09:00
Subject: Re: Amazing GUI toolkit with visual designer & Ruby Integration

Would you mind me asking what changes had to be made that required
modification of the library?

It seems that that is the greatest thing stopping you from using FOX -
a clause in the license about a modified library.

(As a side note - you do know that FOX has an addendum to the LGPL...
you'd still get caught with the 'modified copy of the library' clause,
but that's why I'm asking how vital it really is to modify the
library)

The reason I ask is because I myself am unsure of the 'details' of the
modified LGPL that FOX is released under, and would be worried if I
ever wanted to modify the FOX library to sell a product.

I've asked Jeroen and Lyle before, and they've said that all they
would require of me was to credit the creators (them) and reference
their products (URL) in my applications (which I do) - and I could
build applications using FOX and FXRuby to be sold without legal
concerns.

I believe Jeroen and Lyle both have the rights to their respective
pieces of software, and could then give you special permission to
violate the license... couldn't they? (Not that they would, but they
could...)

From a freely admitted slightly ignorant LGPList,
-Rich


On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 02:51:39 +0900, H. Simpson
<nospam@asdlkfjhasldkjfsadlfhskadjfahsldfks.com> wrote:
> While I'm grateful for Fox-Toolkit and FXRuby too, I cannot use it due
> to licensing issues.
> 
> To clarify, I'm switching from Fox-Toolkit to FLTK due initially to
> licensing reasons on a commercial project.
> 
> I don't mind giving away changes I make to Fox-Toolkit but being
> required to give away the commercial application source that statically
> links to a modified Fox-Toolkit is something that bars me from using it.
>    I'm not saying the license is stupid or wrong--I just cannot use it
> under those terms on my non-hobby projects.
> 
> I found issues/limitations that require me to modify Fox-Toolkit (not
> just subclasses) on Windows platforms.  With FLTK, I found that I don't
> need to make changes to FLTK itself.  And even if I did later on, I
> don't have to give away commercial applications that statically link to
> the modified FLTK--I only need to give back the changes I make to FLTK
> (if any) which is nice.
> 
> On my non-commercial project, the reasons for switching have nothing to
> do with licensing.  I simply find myself MUCH more productive, having
> fun doing GUI work with FLTK--something that ruby does for me compared
> to other languages.  Just like ruby, there are people who will have more
> fun and be more productive with other tools so I can't say whether
> anyone else should switch.
> 
> Most of us passionate about Ruby don't go around bashing other languages
> (yes some do).  But those of use who sing Ruby's praises certainly don't
> want to be misunderstood as claiming "everything else sucks".  The same
> holds true here:  I'm simply singing the praises of a wonderful GUI
> toolkit+designer I recently started using after passing it up initially
> due to misperceptions.  I'm not bashing the alternatives or my previous
> choice.
> 
>