From: Sander Jansen Date: 2005-04-28T23:19:35+09:00 Subject: Re: innaccurate/misleading portrayal of project on rubyforge http://freeride.rubyforge.org/wiki/wiki.pl?GUIFrameworkProject/GUIComparison Hmmm, never seen so much crap on that page, since somebody added that nonsense about the licensing. Sander Richard Lyman wrote: > On 4/24/05, Thursday wrote: > > > > > > > I don't think this kind of mistake accurately portrays the cooperative > > and honest spirit of the ruby community. In addition to correcting the > > page, perhaps the kind folks at rubyforge would think of something nice > > they can do for wxruby and wxWidgets projects to make up for this unjust > > portrayal. > > They already do more than most for almost everybody... > > > Like mentioning licensing terms of each (FOX having the most > > unfriendly toward closed-source commercial projects, FLTK being less > > restrictive, and wxWidgets having the least restrictive license in this > > regard). > > > > DISCLAIMER: by FOX, I mean FOX TOOLKIT, not the cable news channel. > > > > > > Along the lines of being careful about the 'spin' placed on statements > - your comments, as well as any other 'critical looks at licenses', > should link to the pages from the respective authors explaining their > license, since _some_ consider the FOX and FXRuby licenses to be very > friendly toward closed-source commercial projects. Also stating that > FLTK is less restrictive than FOX is a bit misleading since they are > both LGPL and both have an extra clause to allow for static relinking. > Yes, FLTK allows static linking of modified copies, where FOX does not > - my point being that some wouldn't find that restrictive. Everyone > needs to develop their own opinion (business or personal) about what > toolkit is best for their situation. > > In the end I'd encourage anyone interested to simply go to the source > for each toolkit and make up your own mind... > > FOX license: > http://www.fox-toolkit.org/license.html > > wxWidgets license: > http://www.wxwidgets.org/newlicen.htm > > FLTK FAQ entry about license: > http://www.fltk.org/articles.php?L364+I0+TFAQ+P1+Q > > -Rich