Very Computer

Maybe you should look for LGPL graphics libs then.

--
Frank V. Castellucci
http://corelinux.sourceforge.net
OOA/OOD/C++ Standards and Guidelines for Linux

Are there any Non-GPL graphics libs out there? Everyone I've found so
far requires that I distribure source of anything I develop for public
use. I'm all for GPL as long as it doesn't infringe on my right to
make money on my work.

Robert

Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Robert J. Sprawls would say:

Quote:>Are there any Non-GPL graphics libs out there? Everyone I've found so
>far requires that I distribure source of anything I develop for public
>use. I'm all for GPL as long as it doesn't infringe on my right to
>make money on my work.

I don't think there are *any* graphics libraries that are of any
importance that are GPLed.  The 6 most notable are:

- GTK - Uses the LGPL, with the result that vendors such as Applix and
        AOL/Netscape are using it with their products.  AOL/Netscape
        may not have high expectations of getting a lot of money in,
        but I'm sure Applix *do.*

- QT - Is a proprietary product of Troll Tech.  You can buy a license
       for commercial use for [some sum]; see their web site at
       <http://www.trolltech.no> for more details.

- FLTK - Uses LGPL, and thus may be used for products "you want to
       make money off of," examples including ESP Print Pro, Movido
       (animation software)

- Tk - Uses BSD-like license, with the result that "if it breaks, you
       get to keep both pieces."

- Lesstif - Uses LGPL.

- GNUstep - Uses LGPL

That pretty much covers the set of GUI libraries that are in any kind
of vaguely widespread use.

If you are amongst those that consider the LGPL to not be free enough
for you to use to "make money off of," then I suggest that you
consider not developing for Linux, as the deployment of applications
on Linux will require that you use GLIBC, which Happens To Use The
Very Same License.
--
"Objects keep things tidy, but don't accelerate growth: inheritance
does." -- James A. Crippen (after Alan Perlis)

Having read a little deeper into the LGPL it states "distrubution of
object code" not soure code.  Still, I would have to think about this.

[snip]

Quote:>That pretty much covers the set of GUI libraries that are in any kind
>of vaguely widespread use.
>If you are amongst those that consider the LGPL to not be free enough
>for you to use to "make money off of," then I suggest that you
>consider not developing for Linux, as the deployment of applications
>on Linux will require that you use GLIBC, which Happens To Use The
>Very Same License.

I wonder how Real can distribute their rvplayer without object code.
The library would be used in a client/server game where a monthly fee
is charged for server use.  If players could see the code and learn
how the client and serve communicate they make their own server and
I'd be out of business before I cold start.  So you may be right.  I
may not develop the client side for Linux. Thanks.

I feel a clarification is needed:

                  GNU LIBRARY GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
                       Version 2, June 1991

[snip]

  For example, if you distribute copies of the library, whether gratis
or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that we gave
you.  You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source
code.  If you link a program with the library, you must provide
complete object files to the recipients so that they can relink them
with the library, after making changes to the library and recompiling
it.  And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.

The last half of this paragraph concerns me. It does say object files
and not source files so maybe I'm safe, then again...

Robert

  rjs> Having read a little deeper into the LGPL it states "distrubution
  rjs> of object code" not soure code.  Still, I would have to think
  rjs> about this.

You haven't read deeply enough.

What you need to do, in layman's terms, is distribute your program in a
format which allows the LGPL's sections of it to be replaced with other
versions, at the user's discretion.

One way is to distribute your code in object file format (.o's or a big
library or something) that can be relinked with a new version of the
LGPL'd code.  Note you only have to provide it to people who ask, you
don't have to ship it with the program.  Nevertheless, almost no one
uses this method.

Another way is to link with shared library versions of the LGPL'd code,
not static versions.  Now (on an ELF system like Linux) the user can
swap in another version of the shared library as they please.  In this
case, you just provide your normal binary linked dynamically, and you're
done.  This is the method almost everyone uses.

Obviously if you modify the LGPL'd code itself you must provide those
changes under the LGPL, but if you use the stock versions of the code
you are under essentially no obligations.

There are a huge number of companies developing "proprietary" programs
on Linux now.  As Christopher pointed out, the standard system library
on Linux, without which _no_ program would run, is licensed under the
LGPL.  None of these companies has an issue with the LGPL.

If that's not sufficient for you--maybe you _shouldn't_ be developing
for Linux :).

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.

Quote:Robert J. Sprawls wrote...
>  For example, if you distribute copies of the library, whether gratis
>or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that we gave
>you.  You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source
>code.  If you link a program with the library, you must provide
>complete object files to the recipients so that they can relink them
>with the library, after making changes to the library and recompiling
>it.  And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.

>The last half of this paragraph concerns me. It does say object files
>and not source files so maybe I'm safe, then again...

For me it sounds as this is for static libraries that you can only link to
the program when you have the object files. But a shared library is linked
dynamically. It seems that this is the important part about that:
"...so that they can relink them with the library, after making changes to
the library and recompiling it."
which is no problem for shared libaries even with only the executable.
Also, what if you write a program using a commercial OpenGL and someone uses
Mesa (which is under the lgpl) with your program? And what about the glibc
that every linux program uses?

Rolf Magnus

Quote:> Are there any Non-GPL graphics libs out there? Everyone I've
> found so far requires that I distribure source of anything I
> develop for public use. I'm all for GPL as long as it doesn't
> infringe on my right to make money on my work.

I smell a troll.

Nothing you write need be distributed under the GPL, unless you
create a derivative work of a GPL'd program. In which case you
deserve not to have full licensing control over the entire derivative.
You don't have sole copyright.

If your program merely uses GPL'd library calls, it can be distributed
under any license you like.

--
Dave Blake

On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 07:21:54 GMT, Robert J. Sprawls

I fail to see why this would be a problem for you.  Just don't distribute
the object code compiled with debug on (that would take all of the
challenge out of finding out what it does)...

If this whole GPL thing is going to give you such heart-ache, BUY the
QT package from http://www.trolltech.no.  It only seems fair that if
you are going to offer non-free code, you should use non-free libraries
to build them (and that you should pay for those libraries).  Also, QT
is cross platteform, so you could possibley have one code base for all
platteforms, including Win32.

Quote:>is charged for server use.  If players could see the code and learn
>how the client and serve communicate they make their own server and
>I'd be out of business before I cold start.

If what you are offering is sufficiently cool, people will do this with
or without the source code. :)

I would suggest making your client-server communications as secure as you
can (which does NOT mean that they have to be closed source, see the
HOWTO's and the multiple discussions on the pitfalls of "security by
obscurity" for reference).

--
Ken Sodemann

http://www.execpc.com/~stuffle
NASCAR fan, Packer fan | Go #20, #23, #24 (BGN #27) | Go Pack!!

If you USE a LGPL shared library, you don't have to ship anything but
your executable and document the requirement on the shared library and a
link to where they can LOCATE AND DOWNLOAD it.

Relax and read more.
--
Frank V. Castellucci
http://corelinux.sourceforge.net
OOA/OOD/C++ Standards and Guidelines for Linux

Quote:Robert writes:
> Are there any Non-GPL graphics libs out there? Everyone I've found so far
> requires that I distribure source of anything I develop for public use.

They aren't GPL, then.  The GPL does not that you distribute source of
anything you develop for public use.

Quote:> I'm all for GPL as long as it doesn't infringe on my right to make money
> on my work.

Then you have nothing to worry about: the GPL infringes none of your rights
at all.
--
John Hasler

Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin

Quote:

>   For example, if you distribute copies of the library, whether gratis
> or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that we gave
> you.  You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source
> code.  If you link a program with the library, you must provide
> complete object files to the recipients so that they can relink them
> with the library, after making changes to the library and recompiling
> it.  And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.

> The last half of this paragraph concerns me. It does say object files
> and not source files so maybe I'm safe, then again...

Exactly.  It says ``object,'' not ``source,'' precisely so you can
distribute binaries without source.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D.       Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science       FAX   -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University          http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer
VL 2000 Homepage:  http://www.cs.orst.edu/~burnett/vl2000/

* Robert J. Sprawls

Quote:> Are there any Non-GPL graphics libs out there? Everyone I've found so
> far requires that I distribure source of anything I develop for public
> use. I'm all for GPL as long as it doesn't infringe on my right to
> make money on my work.

Are you sure the libraries are GPL? They are usually distributed under
the LGPL (Library GNU Public License) which enabels you to use the
library without having to release the sourcecode. You can make money
too.

Check the licensing again and read up on the LGPL.

vr

If you don't want to distribute source code, and you don't want
to distribute object code, what _are_ you going to ship, just
screenshots and manuals?

--
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  I selected E5... but
                                  at               I didn't hear "Sam the Sham
                               visi.com            and the Pharoahs"!

It's arguable whether this is in fact a right, especially when you use
other people's code.  But...

Quote:> I smell a troll.

> Nothing you write need be distributed under the GPL, unless you
> create a derivative work of a GPL'd program. In which case you
> deserve not to have full licensing control over the entire derivative.
> You don't have sole copyright.

> If your program merely uses GPL'd library calls, it can be distributed
> under any license you like.

???  If that were the case, there wouldn't be any need for the LGPL,
whose explicit purpose is to allow programs that only link with it to
be distributed under non-GPL terms.  I do believe that under the GPL,
a program which links with a library is considered a derivative work
of that library.  (I can try to hunt up chapter and verse if
necessary.)

--

Nate Eldredge