www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - FeedSpot Recognizes the GtkDcoding Blog

reply Ron Tarrant <rontarrant gmail.com> writes:
This morning I was contacted by Anuj Agarwal, the Founder of 
Feedspot, who told me http://GtkDcoding.com has been recognized 
as one of the top 100 blogs for programmers. It's currently 


Anuj said:
"I would like to personally congratulate you as your blog 
gtkDcoding
has been selected by our panelist as one of the Top 100 
Programming Blogs on the web.

https://blog.feedspot.com/programming_blogs/


I personally give you a high-five and want to thank you for your 
contribution to this world. This is the most comprehensive list 
of Top 100 Programming Blogs
on the internet and I'm honored to have you as part of this!"
Feb 04
next sibling parent M.M. <matus email.cz> writes:
On Tuesday, 4 February 2020 at 15:21:30 UTC, Ron Tarrant wrote:
 This morning I was contacted by Anuj Agarwal, the Founder of 
 Feedspot, who told me http://GtkDcoding.com has been recognized 
 as one of the top 100 blogs for programmers. It's currently 


 Anuj said:
 "I would like to personally congratulate you as your blog 
 gtkDcoding
 has been selected by our panelist as one of the Top 100 
 Programming Blogs on the web.

 https://blog.feedspot.com/programming_blogs/


 I personally give you a high-five and want to thank you for 
 your contribution to this world. This is the most comprehensive 
 list of Top 100 Programming Blogs
 on the internet and I'm honored to have you as part of this!"
Congratulations!
Feb 04
prev sibling parent reply Bastiaan Veelo <Bastiaan Veelo.net> writes:
On Tuesday, 4 February 2020 at 15:21:30 UTC, Ron Tarrant wrote:
 This morning I was contacted by Anuj Agarwal, the Founder of 
 Feedspot, who told me http://GtkDcoding.com has been recognized 
 as one of the top 100 blogs for programmers. It's currently 

Well done! Bastiaan.
Feb 04
parent reply Ron Tarrant <rontarrant gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 4 February 2020 at 22:23:33 UTC, Bastiaan Veelo wrote:

 Well done!

 Bastiaan.
On Tuesday, 4 February 2020 at 19:11:48 UTC, M.M. wrote:
 Congratulations!
Thanks, guys. I'm hoping this will help brighten the spotlight on the D language. TIOBE (https://archive.ph/E3Xu7) has D rising fast in popularity. If I can help in some small way to keep this momentum going, then I'm a cappy hamper.
Feb 06
parent reply Patrick Schluter <Patrick.Schluter bbox.fr> writes:
On Thursday, 6 February 2020 at 10:34:16 UTC, Ron Tarrant wrote:
 On Tuesday, 4 February 2020 at 22:23:33 UTC, Bastiaan Veelo 
 wrote:

 Well done!

 Bastiaan.
On Tuesday, 4 February 2020 at 19:11:48 UTC, M.M. wrote:
 Congratulations!
Thanks, guys. I'm hoping this will help brighten the spotlight on the D language. TIOBE (https://archive.ph/E3Xu7) has D rising fast in popularity. If I can help in some small way to keep this momentum going, then I'm a cappy hamper.
These are exactly the things that were a little bit missing in the D world. Usage of it and advertisement of its usage. Congrats for your blog.
Feb 07
parent reply Ron Tarrant <rontarrant gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 7 February 2020 at 10:33:36 UTC, Patrick Schluter 
wrote:

 These are exactly the things that were a little bit missing in 
 the D world. Usage of it and advertisement of its usage.
Indeed. If anyone has more ideas on how to get the word out for D, GtkD, and GtkDcoding, please jump in.
 Congrats for your blog.
Thanks, Patrick.
Feb 07
parent reply Andre Pany <andre s-e-a-p.de> writes:
On Friday, 7 February 2020 at 13:21:00 UTC, Ron Tarrant wrote:
 On Friday, 7 February 2020 at 10:33:36 UTC, Patrick Schluter 
 wrote:

 These are exactly the things that were a little bit missing in 
 the D world. Usage of it and advertisement of its usage.
Indeed. If anyone has more ideas on how to get the word out for D, GtkD, and GtkDcoding, please jump in.
 Congrats for your blog.
Thanks, Patrick.
Also from me congratulations! GtkD (GTK) are a great piece of software and your tutorials are fantastic to get into it. Now the sad part. I would like to use GtkD at work but I can't. The license is really dangerous for companies (you compile lGpl source code into your application), therefore it is a complete no go from the IP department. The license is a huge blocker for GtkD commercial usage. I would like to run GTK applications in the browser (broadway html5). Due to the license issue I have to use the C api): I hope the authors of GtkD could change their mind in future. Kind regards Andre
Feb 07
next sibling parent jmh530 <john.michael.hall gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 7 February 2020 at 14:23:58 UTC, Andre Pany wrote:
 [snip]

 I would like to run GTK applications in the browser (broadway 
 html5). Due to the license issue I have to use the C api):
As someone who doesn't use these, but has been following the GtkDcoding blog, what exactly is the licensing issue for GtkD versus using GTK directly via the C api? Both GtkD and GTK use the LGPL license. It looks like GtkD has some exceptions in theirs, but they don't seem that onerous.
Feb 07
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> writes:
On Fri, 2020-02-07 at 14:23 +0000, Andre Pany via Digitalmars-d-
announce wrote:
 [=E2=80=A6]
=20
 Now the sad part. I would like to use GtkD at work but I can't.=20
 The license is really dangerous for companies (you compile lGpl=20
 source code into your application), therefore it is a complete no=20
 go from the IP department. The license is a huge blocker for GtkD=20
 commercial usage.
I am sure there will be a time in the future when people treat software licencing as a thing with facts and legal positions in various jurisdictions rather than a over-emotional panic station. True companies have convinced themselves that only licences that allow stealing of others' intellectual work are acceptable to business, but then that is the point, they can steal the intellectual work with impugnity.
 I would like to run GTK applications in the browser (broadway=20
 html5). Due to the license issue I have to use the C api):
=20
 I hope the authors of GtkD could change their mind in future.
LGPL is a perfectly reasonable licence for Gtk and GtkD, it is not the bogey-licence that all the knee-jerk emotional reaction claims. LGPL is not GPL. Almost all software developers I know who express strong opinions on software licencing are doing so based on a complete lack of knowledge of the law and thus the actual reality of software licencing. <rant/> --=20 Russel. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk
Feb 07
parent reply bachmeier <no spam.net> writes:
On Friday, 7 February 2020 at 15:05:13 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
 True companies have convinced themselves that only licences 
 that allow stealing of others' intellectual work are acceptable 
 to business, but then that is the point, they can steal the 
 intellectual work with impugnity.
A rant of my own: The push against the GPL is mostly by those who want free software to mean "free labor". GPL software can be dual licensed. Companies can pay for an alternative licensing arrangement if it's that valuable to them. Instead they want "free" software that allows them to avoid payment while imposing restrictions on how others use the software.
Feb 07
parent Laeeth Isharc <laeeth laeeth.com> writes:
On Friday, 7 February 2020 at 16:00:07 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
 On Friday, 7 February 2020 at 15:05:13 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
 True companies have convinced themselves that only licences 
 that allow stealing of others' intellectual work are 
 acceptable to business, but then that is the point, they can 
 steal the intellectual work with impugnity.
A rant of my own: The push against the GPL is mostly by those who want free software to mean "free labor". GPL software can be dual licensed. Companies can pay for an alternative licensing arrangement if it's that valuable to them. Instead they want "free" software that allows them to avoid payment while imposing restrictions on how others use the software.
How do you pay for an alternative licensing arrangement when there are a gazillion contributors some of whom are untraceable and when in practical terms any one of those saying no might make it in practical terms impossible? Software can be dual licensed, but it often isn't, particularly with community developed software. Most software is internal software I think. But a company needs to make decisions strategically in the face of uncertainty. Suppose you are considering a library for internal use and not planning to redistribute. But business is uncertain. Maybe it could be you want to redistribute your software to a future partner. Now if you use a viral license library that doesn't give you an option to pay for it then you are shutting off that option.
Feb 08
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Les De Ridder <les lesderid.net> writes:
On Friday, 7 February 2020 at 14:23:58 UTC, Andre Pany wrote:
 [...]

 Now the sad part. I would like to use GtkD at work but I can't. 
 The license is really dangerous for companies (you compile lGpl 
 source code into your application), therefore it is a complete 
 no go from the IP department. The license is a huge blocker for 
 GtkD commercial usage.
I'm not sure why LGPL is an issue. Does GtkD not allow dynamic linking?
Feb 07
parent reply Andre Pany <andre s-e-a-p.de> writes:
On Friday, 7 February 2020 at 18:16:37 UTC, Les De Ridder wrote:
 On Friday, 7 February 2020 at 14:23:58 UTC, Andre Pany wrote:
 [...]

 Now the sad part. I would like to use GtkD at work but I 
 can't. The license is really dangerous for companies (you 
 compile lGpl source code into your application), therefore it 
 is a complete no go from the IP department. The license is a 
 huge blocker for GtkD commercial usage.
I'm not sure why LGPL is an issue. Does GtkD not allow dynamic linking?
I am not an expert at all in the topic of licensing. This is my understanding: Gtk has the license lgpl. As long as you link dynamically to the shared object files, you can use it in commercial products. GtkD is a D wrapper for GTK. It is D source code which ease the access to the C api of Gtk. GtkD has also the license lgpl. To use GtkD in my application I have to statically link the D source code. Now it gets more complicated, GtkD has some additions to the lgpl rules. I cannot judge how high the risk is for companies to use this component, but as an employee I do anything to avoid any risk for the company I work for. Kind regards Andre
Feb 07
next sibling parent reply jmh530 <john.michael.hall gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 7 February 2020 at 19:51:52 UTC, Andre Pany wrote:
 [snip]
 Now it gets more complicated, GtkD has some additions to the 
 lgpl rules.

 I cannot judge how high the risk is for companies to use this 
 component, but as an employee I do anything to avoid any risk 
 for the company I work for.

 Kind regards
 Andre
The changes are the following: 1) Modification to work on another platform is not a modified or derivative work 2) Static linking is not a modified or derivative work and you do not need to include source code. 3) You have to identify that you use GtkD. If anything, 1 and 2 should make it easier to use GtkD with your I work in an industry where the goal is to take smart risks and be compensated for it. Almost everything is a risk. The question is if the risk is worth it or not. If using GtkD saves you X more hours a year in programming time than the C API, then that helps put a dollar value of the benefit. I think the cost is relatively minor, but that's for your company to decide.
Feb 07
next sibling parent Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy gmail.com> writes:
On 2/7/20 3:44 PM, jmh530 wrote:
 On Friday, 7 February 2020 at 19:51:52 UTC, Andre Pany wrote:
 [snip]
 Now it gets more complicated, GtkD has some additions to the lgpl rules.

 I cannot judge how high the risk is for companies to use this 
 component, but as an employee I do anything to avoid any risk for the 
 company I work for.

 Kind regards
 Andre
The changes are the following: 1) Modification to work on another platform is not a modified or derivative work 2) Static linking is not a modified or derivative work and you do not need to include source code. 3) You have to identify that you use GtkD. If anything, 1 and 2 should make it easier to use GtkD with your company it isn't any worse than a normal LGPL license.
Just a cursory reading of 1 it pretty much guts the point of using LGPL, as anyone can legitimately claim that they modified gtkd to work with their application (isn't that why you would modify it in the first place?) The second exception is a solid addition, and makes things much more pleasant in terms of D being a statically compiled language. The second part of that clause is again gutted by the first clause -- it's basically on the whim of the developer whether he wants to consider a modification to gtkd to be a "modified work". I would be fine with that license if I were doing proprietary development (I have no problem giving attribution). -Steve
Feb 07
prev sibling parent reply Andre Pany <andre s-e-a-p.de> writes:
On Friday, 7 February 2020 at 20:44:32 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
 On Friday, 7 February 2020 at 19:51:52 UTC, Andre Pany wrote:
 [snip]
 Now it gets more complicated, GtkD has some additions to the 
 lgpl rules.

 I cannot judge how high the risk is for companies to use this 
 component, but as an employee I do anything to avoid any risk 
 for the company I work for.

 Kind regards
 Andre
The changes are the following: 1) Modification to work on another platform is not a modified or derivative work 2) Static linking is not a modified or derivative work and you do not need to include source code. 3) You have to identify that you use GtkD. If anything, 1 and 2 should make it easier to use GtkD with license. I work in an industry where the goal is to take smart risks and be compensated for it. Almost everything is a risk. The question is if the risk is worth it or not. If using GtkD saves you X more hours a year in programming time than the C API, then that helps put a dollar value of the benefit. I think the cost is relatively minor, but that's for your company to decide.
I am in the position to convince the team architect to use an unknown programming language which gui framework is of type lgpl. The team architect of course say, why can't we use programming language x, y or z where there is no license question at all? From a risk management perspective I would also decide for any other language just to be 100% on the safe side. All what you say is completely true. Still, the license makes it a very hard job to advertise the D Programming Language at the place I work. It is already hard, and I do not want also get into discussions with IP department about license issues. And still, GtkD is in my opinion the best UI for D. If GtkD would have any other type of license, I could just use without getting in contact with IP department. Kind regards Andre
Feb 07
parent reply jmh530 <john.michael.hall gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 7 February 2020 at 23:14:28 UTC, Andre Pany wrote:
 [snip]

 All what you say is completely true. Still, the license makes 
 it a very hard job to advertise the D Programming Language at 
 the place I work. It is already hard, and I do not want also 
 get into discussions with IP department about license issues.

 [snip]
You keep emphasizing the problem with LGPL. That is also a problem with any use of Gtk. If you used Gtk with any other language, then you would likely have the exact same issue. PyGTK is LGPL, for instance. Your issue isn't with D or GtkD, except to the extent that other GUI libraries aren't as developed or don't have licenses you are happy with either.
Feb 07
parent Andre Pany <andre s-e-a-p.de> writes:
On Friday, 7 February 2020 at 23:39:34 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
 On Friday, 7 February 2020 at 23:14:28 UTC, Andre Pany wrote:
 [snip]

 All what you say is completely true. Still, the license makes 
 it a very hard job to advertise the D Programming Language at 
 the place I work. It is already hard, and I do not want also 
 get into discussions with IP department about license issues.

 [snip]
You keep emphasizing the problem with LGPL. That is also a problem with any use of Gtk. If you used Gtk with any other language, then you would likely have the exact same issue. PyGTK is LGPL, for instance. Your issue isn't with D or GtkD, except to the extent that other GUI libraries aren't as developed or don't have licenses you are happy with either.
GTK was already evaluated by IP department and I could use it as long I do dynamic linking and do not copy any code snippets from gtk code base. Kind regards Andre
Feb 07
prev sibling next sibling parent Les De Ridder <les lesderid.net> writes:
On Friday, 7 February 2020 at 19:51:52 UTC, Andre Pany wrote:
 On Friday, 7 February 2020 at 18:16:37 UTC, Les De Ridder wrote:
 On Friday, 7 February 2020 at 14:23:58 UTC, Andre Pany wrote:
 [...]

 Now the sad part. I would like to use GtkD at work but I 
 can't. The license is really dangerous for companies (you 
 compile lGpl source code into your application), therefore it 
 is a complete no go from the IP department. The license is a 
 huge blocker for GtkD commercial usage.
I'm not sure why LGPL is an issue. Does GtkD not allow dynamic linking?
I am not an expert at all in the topic of licensing. This is my understanding: Gtk has the license lgpl. As long as you link dynamically to the shared object files, you can use it in commercial products. GtkD is a D wrapper for GTK. It is D source code which ease the access to the C api of Gtk. GtkD has also the license lgpl. To use GtkD in my application I have to statically link the D source code. Now it gets more complicated, GtkD has some additions to the lgpl rules. I cannot judge how high the risk is for companies to use this component, but as an employee I do anything to avoid any risk for the company I work for. Kind regards Andre
GtkD's COPYING file contains the following:
 2. Static linking of applications or any other source to the 
 GtkD
 library does not constitute a modified or derivative work and 
 does not
 require the author(s) to provide source code for said work, use 
 the
 shared GtkD libraries, or link their applications against a
 user-supplied version of GtkD.
Looking at the GtkD code, it seems much of it was written in a way specifically to avoid licensing issues, e.g. by loading libraries and populating function pointers at runtime[1][2]. I'm not sure it even *supports* static linking with GTK libraries. I compiled one of the GtkD examples[3] on Linux with dub, and was able to confirm with `ltrace` that it indeed loads the GTK libraries at runtime using `dlopen` when compiling with the default configuration. [1] https://github.com/gtkd-developers/GtkD/blob/master/src/gtkd/Loader.d [2] https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gtkd-developers/GtkD/master/generated/gtkd/gtk/c/functions.d [3] https://github.com/gtkd-developers/GtkD/tree/master/demos/gtkD/TestWindow
Feb 07
prev sibling parent sarn <sarn theartofmachinery.com> writes:
On Friday, 7 February 2020 at 19:51:52 UTC, Andre Pany wrote:
 On Friday, 7 February 2020 at 18:16:37 UTC, Les De Ridder wrote:
 I'm not sure why LGPL is an issue. Does GtkD not allow dynamic 
 linking?
I am not an expert at all in the topic of licensing. This is my understanding: Gtk has the license lgpl. As long as you link dynamically to the shared object files, you can use it in commercial products. GtkD is a D wrapper for GTK. It is D source code which ease the access to the C api of Gtk. GtkD has also the license lgpl. To use GtkD in my application I have to statically link the D source code. Now it gets more complicated, GtkD has some additions to the lgpl rules. I cannot judge how high the risk is for companies to use this component, but as an employee I do anything to avoid any risk for the company I work for. Kind regards Andre
I prefer MPLv2 for LGPL-style liberal copyleft in D code because it unambiguously draws the line based on files. No one has to speculate about whether, for example, LGPL's special exceptions for macro expansion also cover D's template system. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/FAQ/
Feb 07
prev sibling parent reply Bastiaan Veelo <Bastiaan Veelo.net> writes:
On Friday, 7 February 2020 at 14:23:58 UTC, Andre Pany wrote:
 Also from me congratulations!

 GtkD (GTK) are a great piece of software and your tutorials are 
 fantastic to get into it.

 Now the sad part. I would like to use GtkD at work but I can't. 
 The license is really dangerous for companies (you compile lGpl 
 source code into your application), therefore it is a complete 
 no go from the IP department. The license is a huge blocker for 
 GtkD commercial usage.
This is just FUD, and not true. Did you read the license? [1] It explicitly states additional freedoms not present in the LGPL. You may even link statically without the license infecting your proprietary code! It seems to me it is the incompetence of your IP department that is your problem, not the GtkD license.
 I would like to run GTK applications in the browser (broadway 
 html5). Due to the license issue I have to use the C api):
What difference does that make, legally? AFAIK the C api license is more restrictive than GtkD’s license.
 I hope the authors of GtkD could change their mind in future.
In what way? I’d advise your IP department to talk to Mike Wey directly. Bastiaan. [1] https://github.com/gtkd-developers/GtkD/blob/master/COPYING
Feb 07
parent reply Andre Pany <andre s-e-a-p.de> writes:
On Friday, 7 February 2020 at 20:36:41 UTC, Bastiaan Veelo wrote:
 On Friday, 7 February 2020 at 14:23:58 UTC, Andre Pany wrote:
 Also from me congratulations!

 GtkD (GTK) are a great piece of software and your tutorials 
 are fantastic to get into it.

 Now the sad part. I would like to use GtkD at work but I 
 can't. The license is really dangerous for companies (you 
 compile lGpl source code into your application), therefore it 
 is a complete no go from the IP department. The license is a 
 huge blocker for GtkD commercial usage.
This is just FUD, and not true. Did you read the license? [1] It explicitly states additional freedoms not present in the LGPL. You may even link statically without the license infecting your proprietary code! It seems to me it is the incompetence of your IP department that is your problem, not the GtkD license.
 I would like to run GTK applications in the browser (broadway 
 html5). Due to the license issue I have to use the C api):
What difference does that make, legally? AFAIK the C api license is more restrictive than GtkD’s license.
 I hope the authors of GtkD could change their mind in future.
In what way? I’d advise your IP department to talk to Mike Wey directly. Bastiaan. [1] https://github.com/gtkd-developers/GtkD/blob/master/COPYING
Are this point of time I didn't contacted the IP department. I try to advertise the D Programming Language at the place I work. There are multiple programming languages used and no one has heard of D before. Although you are right, the label lgpl makes my job harder. From a risk management perspective I understand if a team architect decides for any other language just to be 100% on the safe side. This is the point I want to stress. Kind regards Andre
Feb 07
parent Ron Tarrant <rontarrant gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 7 February 2020 at 23:28:00 UTC, Andre Pany wrote:

 Although you are right, the label lgpl makes my job harder. 
 From a risk management perspective I understand if a team 
 architect decides for any other language just to be 100% on the 
 safe side.

 This is the point I want to stress.
I hope you can find your way through this maze, Andre. Corporate adoption will go a long way toward giving D and GtkD a higher profile. All the code offered on the GtkDcoding blog is and always will be public domain*, so at least that won't be a hurdle. *Not the text of the blog posts, though. That's copyrighted material in case anyone wants to know.
Feb 08