The SDL forums have moved to discourse.libsdl.org.
This is just a read-only archive of the previous forums, to keep old links working.

Hello together First of all you can find a quick guide to program Geeonx applications at http://www.geeonx.org/geeonx_create.pdf @ actsl: - The Geeonx library and the tool Geeonx Creator are subject to a proprietary license. - Geeonx is based on SDL 1.2 because of the great framebuffer support. By using the framebuffer Geeonx applications can run without a X-Server. This is important for embedded systems. - Geeonx provides input windows with text editing functionality. @ Leonardo: - You can design every button by yourself. You can use pictures as buttons. Nik

Hello the Geeonx GUI-library and the corresponding interface creator Geeonx Creator can now be downloaded at www.geeonx.org. The library provides window management, drawing and update of all GUI-elements like windows, pulldown-menus, icons, inputforms and buttons of an application. Currently the library and the Creator are available for LINUX x86 32 bit und x86 64 bit. Kind regards Nik

2016-08-08 17:17 GMT+02:00, Nik:

Maybe some short code examples using Geeonx, and pictures what it
creates on it's homepage would be nice.

// Daniel V.
_______________________________________________
SDL mailing list

http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

2016-08-10 11:22 GMT+02:00 Nik:

Why such a choice? I hope you'll reconsider this.

Proprietary license will sorely reduce your target audience, such
people would not use closed source software that they can not hack
(including me).

It's also harder to port the stuff to other platforms.

You will not have any contributions and as you may already know, SDL
has a lots of contributions. Think about everything that you don't
have or don't want. Is it not nice to get people making ports of your
software for several platforms for you? Like, xbox, android, nintendo
ds, atari, whatever.

If you really care about credits, why not using GPL and a commercial
license? Free software developers will be happy to have access to
source code and you can earn money for commercial apps.

Regards,

--
Demelier David
_______________________________________________
SDL mailing list

http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

Hello together

@ Daniel:

When I have time I will improve my introduction to the library. Until then please use geeonx_create.pdf.


@ David:

I spent lots of time over years into the development of the library. I don't like if someone reuse my sourcecode but everybody is allowed to download and execute the library according to the license conditions. I think it is a fair deal :-).

Kind regards

Nik

I understand you completely, but what concerns my widget toolkit, reusing the source code is the most important, so in any other way than open source it makes no sense.

I appreciate the great work done by everyone who wrote GUI widget toolkits / graphical user interface libraries, and i think that it deserves much more appreciation than it gets. For every single one of these libraries, people put great effort into them.

like i am very poor, maybe just a step away from going to live in the streets, and giving away my work without getting any benefits of it, is not what i think people like me should do.

I don't know who really thought out the concepts of open source and free software. These are great, and there is a lot of right in it. And i'm all for open source. But they are extreme. Like now there exists only two extremes, completely open source and free, or fully closed source and commercial. The right solution should be somewhere in between, so that all, both the developers and the users, get benefit. What about a license that says that the source code will be made open after a certain time, like say 5 years. This may be a solution that gives benefit to all, but no one talks about it, everything ever talked about is either open source or commercial. I wonder why, and whose benefit it is to bring it to such extremes.

Keep up the good work.

Unfortunately, no nation's economy has figured out how to properly compensate or encourage open source contributions.  Such compensation doesn't fit with standard methods in capitalism.  You still have to take care of yourself until we get to that point and we can't exactly say what's best for everyone.

Jonny D




On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 9:17 AM, actsl wrote:

One method that has worked is to set a bounty for open sourcing it. This tended to be bigger projects though (Mozilla and Blender come to mind)


On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 2:12 PM, j_post wrote:



--
Joe Tennies

[quote="Joe Tennies"]One method that has worked is to set a bounty for open sourcing it. This tended to be bigger projects though (Mozilla and Blender come to mind)

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 2:12 PM, j_post wrote:

So this is what i think.

> The true measure of one's software skills is in having one's work widely accepted by the community of users.

Wrong. Software is complex. More complex than anything people make likely, like Linux with all the software written in it, is likely the most complex artificially made system on Earth. So rarely is its value estimated by analyzing the code itself. Thus the primary are indirect ways of estimating the value. These can be someone's opinions, or how by someone's understanding the software will benefit one or another field of life. Which can be extremely subjective, like someone's opinion may depend on someone's interests, which may not be the benefits of the users of the software at all. Thus software development is a rare field, where the benefit you get may not depend on the quality of what you do. Means it's not that when you do a good work, you get a good award, like when a carpenter makes a good furniture, everyone sees that it's a good furniture, and has a value. Very different when making software. And users, because the software is complex, often don't even try to use the software before they get confirmation by the people they consider competent, that the software is good, these are most often not the other users. The users are also mostly not competent in the matters related to the developed software, because many of them use the first time that kind of software, and thus in spite they may have a good experience in using other types of software, they have almost no knowledge about that particular software.

> I also received thousands of dollars worth of hardware for free to enable me to write FOSS to work with said hardware.

Yes, someone buy me a high DPI monitor. Because i have a long time a pull request, for changes in my kiss_sdl widget toolkit for high DPI monitors. But i cannot accept it, as i cannot test it, because i have no high DPI monitor. I know others can test it, but i cannot accept it in my code when i cannot test it myself.

> But perhaps of most importance to those like the OP is that many companies
these days prefer to hire those who've done successful FOSS. If you're good at
it, the doors are wide open in the job market.

Very wrong. I talked to one IT manager (Finnish), the software they developed in his company, required certain features that needed a lot of development, and they had no experience in his company in that field. I knew there were open source developers, who had participated in development of some very popular and widely used software, were very competent in that field, and were willing to work for pay, at that much cheaper than his company currently paid for the development. I suggested him to hire one of these open source developers, but he said that he will not do that because open source developers cannot be controlled. So not only doesn't open source development help one to get job, but it evidently lowers ones chances to get job. When anyone gets to know that you do open source development, that is, but when you are a developer, you cannot easily hide what you have done, especially when you have done a lot of open source development.

This doesn't mean that i say that doing open source development doesn't give any benefits at all, i only say that in my opinion your arguments of what are the benefits, are wrong, and open source development may not give any personal benefits whatsoever, or may be harmful to a person due to a lot of time and effort spent for that, and a lot of skills acquired that give no benefit at all in ones personal life. Some of the skills that require almost a lifetime to learn. To the extent that this may kill an individual, and most likely there are such cases too, though no one of course talks about them. Thus open source development can kill people. Again, i don't exclude that for some open source development may give personal benefit, i only say how i think it is in general.

But again, why that paradigm, open source or commercial, why does it have to be so extreme, why only that must be considered right, and nothing else. What about a license that says that the source will be made open after 5 years, or then yes, will be made open after a certain amount of money has been received. Why these shouldn't be the options at all?