[E-devel] Re: E CVS: proto moom16

I'm getting a segv on etk_test here (bt below). I have to agree with
Nathan though. I definitely see nothing wrong with implementing your own
toolkit. However, we could probably get ALOT more done if we pooled our
efforts instead of constantly redoing things. I am curious also, as to
what faults EWL has that led you to design and write your own toolkit.

There are definitely two main styles of toolkits in E right now. A
traditional, packed toolkit (ewl, etk, eblocks), and an edje + smart
object based toolkit (esmart, various smartobjs in apps/e). I definitely
see these two styles as coexisting nicely, and worth the somewhat
duplicated effort. However, I really fail to see the need for multiple
packed toolkits.

Some other little things. Before committing large projects to CVS (even
to proto), send a note to the list explaining what the project is. Also,
in your initial commit, make the message a little more descriptive. So,
instead of "Import of Eczema", say "Import of Eczema, a new application
that cures that obnoxious condition everyone's been mistaking for
dandruff all these years..."

As for licensing, you're definitely free to build on our code and slap
whatever the hell license you want on it (we DO use the anarchist
license after all...) BUT, its still a bit rude. And means your library
won't get as much usage by E folk. (MEJ'll give you hell... :):)

Anyway, I hope you don't think we're attacking you. Simply looking for
explanations as to why you made the decisions you did.

And now, the promised backtrace:

Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
[Switching to Thread 16384 (LWP 2440)]
0x00002aaaad08a12c in ecore_str_hash (key=0x1) at ecore_value.c:69
69 for (i = 0; k[i] != '\0'; i++) {
(gdb) bt
#0 0x00002aaaad08a12c in ecore_str_hash (key=0x1) at ecore_value.c:69
#1 0x00002aaaad0840a5 in _ecore_hash_get_node (hash=0x52b4d0, key=0x1)
at ecore_hash.c:458
#2 0x00002aaaad08413e in ecore_hash_get (hash=0x1, key=0x0)
at ecore_hash.c:361
#3 0x00002aaaaabcd23c in etk_type_property_find (type=0x1,
name=0x1 <Address 0x1 out of bounds>, property_owner=0x7fffffb9fb78,
property=0x7fffffb9fb80) at etk_type.c:347
#4 0x00002aaaaabcd94a in etk_object_properties_set_valist
(object=0x52bbf0,
first_property=0x0, args=0x7fffffb9fbd0) at etk_object.c:358
#5 0x00002aaaaabcdac0 in etk_object_new_valist (object_type=0x52b3a0,
first_property=0x2aaaaabe1e60 "theme_group", args=0x7fffffb9fbd0)
at etk_object.c:111
#6 0x00002aaaaabcfef4 in etk_widget_new (widget_type=0x52b3a0,
first_property=0x2aaaaabe1e60 "theme_group") at etk_widget.c:212
#7 0x00002aaaaabda178 in etk_button_new_with_label (label=0x40428c
"Button")
at etk_button.c:99
#8 0x0000000000402206 in main (argc=1, argv=0x0) at etk_test.c:63

--
rephorm

Post by Nathan Ingersoll
MoOm,
It looks like you've put considerable effort into this already. It doesn't
bother me that you wanted to write your own toolkit rather than use EWL,
everyone has their own API style and approach to specific problems. That
being said, I am bothered by the fact dj2 and I asked you numerous times
what fundamental design issues in EWL were a problem for you, and we never
got a response other than some bug reports on individual widgets and a
patch for the grid widget which did not get applied because you didn't
respond to my questions about breaking equate.
I took a brief look at etk after seeing the commit, and felt a couple
comments needed to be made. First off, the LGPL license. I don't think we
have a "rule" but most E projects are BSD+advertising licensed. By using
the LGPL, you've locked that code out of being re-used in any BSD licensed
portion of the project w/o converting that portion to LGPL as well. You
have also created a theme (incorporating the e17 images w/o attribution)
that we cannot re-use w/o using the LGPL license. Secondly, it appears
you're following the GTK+ API very closely, if you are happy with that API
design and the choice of an LGPL license, why not write a backend to GTK+
rather than write a full library cloning it's API (this question applies to
CodeWarrior and eblocks too)? I have not looked at it in depth, but the
default theme does not display correctly on OS X (probably a CPP
portability issue), it's a black window with some text.

Arlo

2005-10-06 01:46:23 UTC

I also get the segfault with etk_test, though the backtrace is slightly
different, so here's mine:

#0 0x00002aaaad193c7e in ecore_str_hash () from /usr/lib/libecore.so.1
#1 0x00002aaaad18bce0 in ecore_hash_remove () from /usr/lib/libecore.so.1
#2 0x00002aaaad18b9d1 in ecore_hash_get () from /usr/lib/libecore.so.1
#3 0x00002aaaaabcc22c in etk_type_property_find (type=0x1,
name=0x1 <Address 0x1 out of bounds>, property_owner=0x7fffffcf7ea8,
property=0x7fffffcf7eb0) at etk_type.c:347
#4 0x00002aaaaabcc93a in etk_object_properties_set_valist
(object=0x52ca00,
first_property=0x1 <Address 0x1 out of bounds>, args=0x7fffffcf7f00)
at etk_object.c:358
#5 0x00002aaaaabccab0 in etk_object_new_valist (object_type=0x52c1b0,
first_property=0x2aaaaabe0e50 "theme_group", args=0x7fffffcf7f00)
at etk_object.c:111
#6 0x00002aaaaabceee4 in etk_widget_new (widget_type=0x52c1b0,
first_property=0x2aaaaabe0e50 "theme_group") at etk_widget.c:212
#7 0x00002aaaaabd9168 in etk_button_new_with_label (label=0x40428c
"Button")
at etk_button.c:99
#8 0x0000000000402206 in main (argc=1, argv=0x1) at etk_test.c:63

Simon TRENY

2005-10-08 06:20:54 UTC

Hi Nathan, Hi Brian,

First, I have to say that I'm sorry for having kept Etk secret and send
it to the CVS without any notification, it was probably the worst way to
proceed.
Now, the reasons why I have started Etk: as I always said, I wasn't
fully satisfied with ewl because it didn't worked as I expected it to
do. So I tried for a (short, I agree) moment to improve it by making a
patch for the grid container (which didn't solve all the problems, but
the idea of the fix was there), by making a theme (it has never been
finished because there were a lot of widget size/placement problem with
this theme). I also send a list of 4 bugs/incorrect behaviors for the
menu widgets, but they've never been fixed.

Now, that's true that Etk and Ewl are in direct competition, both dev
teams won't give up their job, and the two projects can't blend together
since they are really two different. The only solution I see is that the
two libs will have to coexist, which is not really bad, it could even
become a way to work better/faster (CodeWarrior and I are already
helping each other on eblocks/etk). Some projects will be made with etk,
and other with ewl. The only thing is that it will be definitively
confusing for the user, and will give two different looks to the apps.
For the last point, I think it could be fixed if the themes of Etk and
Ewl become compatible but it may be hard.

About the licence, I'm not against the BSD licence, it's just that Etk
takes a lot of concepts from GTK (hence the name Etk): properties,
signals, resize system and the API. No code has been taken, everything
has been recoded, but I'm not sure it won't cause licence problems
anyway. So for now, it will stay under LGPL until I'm sure there is no
licence problem.

Regards,
Simon TRENY <MoOm>

Post by Brian Mattern
I'm getting a segv on etk_test here (bt below). I have to agree with
Nathan though. I definitely see nothing wrong with implementing your own
toolkit. However, we could probably get ALOT more done if we pooled our
efforts instead of constantly redoing things. I am curious also, as to
what faults EWL has that led you to design and write your own toolkit.
There are definitely two main styles of toolkits in E right now. A
traditional, packed toolkit (ewl, etk, eblocks), and an edje + smart
object based toolkit (esmart, various smartobjs in apps/e). I definitely
see these two styles as coexisting nicely, and worth the somewhat
duplicated effort. However, I really fail to see the need for multiple
packed toolkits.
Some other little things. Before committing large projects to CVS (even
to proto), send a note to the list explaining what the project is. Also,
in your initial commit, make the message a little more descriptive. So,
instead of "Import of Eczema", say "Import of Eczema, a new application
that cures that obnoxious condition everyone's been mistaking for
dandruff all these years..."
As for licensing, you're definitely free to build on our code and slap
whatever the hell license you want on it (we DO use the anarchist
license after all...) BUT, its still a bit rude. And means your library
won't get as much usage by E folk. (MEJ'll give you hell... :):)
Anyway, I hope you don't think we're attacking you. Simply looking for
explanations as to why you made the decisions you did.
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
[Switching to Thread 16384 (LWP 2440)]
0x00002aaaad08a12c in ecore_str_hash (key=0x1) at ecore_value.c:69
69 for (i = 0; k[i] != '\0'; i++) {
(gdb) bt
#0 0x00002aaaad08a12c in ecore_str_hash (key=0x1) at ecore_value.c:69
#1 0x00002aaaad0840a5 in _ecore_hash_get_node (hash=0x52b4d0, key=0x1)
at ecore_hash.c:458
#2 0x00002aaaad08413e in ecore_hash_get (hash=0x1, key=0x0)
at ecore_hash.c:361
#3 0x00002aaaaabcd23c in etk_type_property_find (type=0x1,
name=0x1 <Address 0x1 out of bounds>, property_owner=0x7fffffb9fb78,
property=0x7fffffb9fb80) at etk_type.c:347
#4 0x00002aaaaabcd94a in etk_object_properties_set_valist
(object=0x52bbf0,
first_property=0x0, args=0x7fffffb9fbd0) at etk_object.c:358
#5 0x00002aaaaabcdac0 in etk_object_new_valist (object_type=0x52b3a0,
first_property=0x2aaaaabe1e60 "theme_group", args=0x7fffffb9fbd0)
at etk_object.c:111
#6 0x00002aaaaabcfef4 in etk_widget_new (widget_type=0x52b3a0,
first_property=0x2aaaaabe1e60 "theme_group") at etk_widget.c:212
#7 0x00002aaaaabda178 in etk_button_new_with_label (label=0x40428c
"Button")
at etk_button.c:99
#8 0x0000000000402206 in main (argc=1, argv=0x0) at etk_test.c:63
--
rephorm

-------------------------------------------------------
Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions,
and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Michael Jennings

2005-10-10 22:21:54 UTC

On Thursday, 06 October 2005, at 03:20:19 (-0500),

1) EWL just doesn't FEEL right. Meaning: When you open up an EWL
application (e.g. e_util_eapp_edit), things don't respond the way one
would expect. Resizing is often buggy, cursors / highlighting in text fields
is strange, etc.

There are definitely some issues here but I think they've improved
considerably over the last year. There are examples of some fairly
complex layout being done successfully in the test app now as well
as a filemanager written by chaos. The filedialog in particular is
packed pretty nicely, along with the theme test which shows off some
of the theming features EWL incorporates.

Are there minor, mostly-cosmetic issues here and there with EWL?
Yes. Are there features missing from some widgets? Yes.

Is that a design flaw that requires a rewrite? NO.

I think we can be cut some slack on the text fields as they were
completely reworked this summer and are fairly complex. They do a
reasonable job towards handling multiline text manipulation with
textblock, which is not an easy thing to do, as CodeWarrior should
know. We do need some auto-scrolling code added, but I've written
that code enough times (Epplets, and a few versions of EWL's text
handlers) that I'd rather not do it again.

Again, this is simply additional code that must be written, not a
design flaw.

2) It would take longer to learn the EWL internals to be able to

meaningfully contribute than it would to simply start afresh.

That is a crock of shit if I ever heard one. It always takes more
time to create something new of equal calibur than it does to learn
what's already there. The only way it takes less time to "start
afresh" is there are serious design flaws that can only be overcome by
a complete bottom-to-top overhaul.

And NOT ONE concrete example of a true design flaw has been pointed
out yet.

Not even one.

The argument being made is that it's easier to design and write
12985 lines of code and documentation spread across 70 files than it
is to read and understand 11193 lines of code and documentation?

Anyone with half a brain should know that that isn't true. This
argument is simply an example of grasping at straws in an effort to
forward one's own political agenda (in this case, ETK) when one simply
cannot come up with *actual* valid reasons.

3) EWL was designed for Ebits and the original incarnations of Evas and

Ecore. The many moves to newer
libraries (Edje, modern Evas/Ecore), although commendable, may have
introduced a number of bugs.

So what? I could also say, "ETK, while commendable, has introduced a
number of bugs." And judging by the number of stories I've heard here
and on IRC about ETK seg-faulting out the ass, I'd be talking about
very real, very concrete bugs that DO EXIST. You're talking about
bugs that MAY or MAY NOT exist.

Do we not see the major logic gap here? Did anyone bother to ask how
much the code changed with those ports? Would you be surprised if I
said that each of those ports involved changing about 100 lines of
code? All of these ports improved the code because the basis it was
built on was more solid and gave us a chance to learn where code
duplication crept in and refactor it.
Currently, EWL has 193 references to Evas functions and 31
references to Edje calls. If for some reason there was another Evas
rewrite, or a better canvas or Edje-like lib came around that worked
on a somewhat similar model, EWL could be ported fairly easily. In
fact, we could split out these points into theme engine hooks and
drawing methods if we really saw a good need to support more than
Evas and Edje (plus renaming a few internal functions).

I appreciate that you are able to respond to the FUD with actual,
well-thought-out arguments. I just wish those in the ETK "camp" could
do likewise.

You're right about the looks, I've changed the default theme to the
e17 for now to give it a better match to the default window manager
look. I don't know how many times I can say it, but WE NEED HELP
THEMING! I am decent with basic graphics, but given the choice
between working on code and working on the theme, the code always
wins. A lot of the default theme is just hacks I put in place so I
could see the results of the code. The e17 theme is at least better
than that.

And the look of the default theme has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with
code or design, and it certainly does not make an argument for a
rewrite.

Good question, and there only one answer I can give you: it's my
fault. The base of EWL has been changing and evolving, making it
very difficult to have a stable API to write higher level widgets on
top of and to debug some of the issues with lower level widgets. It
has stabilized a fair amount over the last year which has allowed us
to work out more of the layout issues. There has been a ton of work
put into increasing code re-use as much as I can and that has
impacted assumptions that other programmers can make as well as made
debugging more difficult for some cases.

There's also a complete lack of debugging infrastructure in E code in
general. Run "Eterm --debug 2" sometime and look at how much
information is hidden in there waiting to be revealed. And it can be
compiled in or out and turned on or off at will. Contrast this with E
and related projects where "debugging" printf calls are thrown in and
out (and in again) with haphazard giddyness.

The project aspect I really don't care that much about. They're
welcome to do their own toolkit project, there are plenty of them
out there and it's a good learning experience, but the fact that
their motivations seem so misguided and that they have been
attacking work that they admit to knowing little about, that bothers
me a lot. Yes, EWL is my "baby" but I'm very open to suggestions on
how to improve it. This is why I've asked MoOm and CodeWarrior to
PLEASE (yes, I'm asking again) point out what the design issues
truly are if they see some. Then we can do an evaluation to
determine if the issues are such fundamental flaws that changing the
current code base doesn't make sense.

The fundamental problem here is that having ETK in the "official" E
CVS tree lends it credibility, and based on the "discussions" so far
(which have consisted almost entirely of one side asking for concrete
examples and the other side ignoring their requests while continuing
to whine), it does not come close to deserving that credibility.

Something CodeWarrior mentioned on IRC was the fact that EWL had been rather
quiet for a while until ETK hit CVS, so the competition must have sparked
the activity.
This is wrong, it was just coincidence.

It's also a LIE. Note the following monthly totals of CVS commits for
2005:

May 27
June 73
July 62
August 54
September 40

ETK showed up on October 1st.

On Saturday, 08 October 2005, at 10:25:43 (+0200),

First, I have to say that I'm sorry for having kept Etk secret and
send it to the CVS without any notification, it was probably the
worst way to proceed.

Yes, it was the worst way to proceed, and it clearly shows that your
motives were not above-board. As to whether or not you're actually
sorry, I honestly don't believe you. I think you decided it was
easier to apologize afterward than to ask permission beforehand. I
believe it was a conscious decision on your part to not discuss the
situation with anyone.

Now, the reasons why I have started Etk: as I always said, I wasn't
fully satisfied with ewl because it didn't worked as I expected it
to do. So I tried for a (short, I agree) moment to improve it by
making a patch for the grid container (which didn't solve all the
problems, but the idea of the fix was there), by making a theme (it
has never been finished because there were a lot of widget
size/placement problem with this theme). I also send a list of 4
bugs/incorrect behaviors for the menu widgets, but they've never
been fixed.

This is not a design flaw. This is laziness on your part. You made a
half-assed (if that) effort to help out, and then you decided that you
were going to do things your own way and to Hell with the rest of the
project.

Now, that's true that Etk and Ewl are in direct competition, both
dev teams won't give up their job

There is only one "dev team," not two, and you're either a part of it
or against it.

The only solution I see is that the two libs will have to coexist,

Hardly. Another solution (and my favorite, by the way) is that ETK
be removed from CVS. You can start your own project on SourceForge if
you wish, but your underhanded tactics and complete disregard for
teamwork do far more to harm the community than to help it. I would
rather have one less person helping out than have to deal with actions
like this.

If there is a real design flaw in EWL that prevents it from moving
forward, let's hear it. Otherwise it's just your ego driving an
attempted coup, and frankly you can take both elsewhere.

Michael

--
Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX) http://www.kainx.org/ <***@kainx.org>
n + 1, Inc., http://www.nplus1.net/ Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have gotten into the habit of recording important meetings. One
never knows when an inconvenient truth will fall between the cracks
and vanish." -- Ambassador Londo Mollari, Babylon Five

shadoi

2005-10-10 22:37:14 UTC

I've been thinking a lot about this whole EWL/ETK mess. Is there ANY
way for these two projects to co-exist? Even share some of the same
code? Could ETK be merged with EWL (perhaps have separate name spaces
for each API under EWL?), at least then, applications can still link to
EWL but use either API style. That is what we're talking about mainly
here, is the fact that ETK emulates GTK while EWL has a new
implementation. I know this would be a lot of work. There's bound to
be useless duplication, but at least it could be kept to a minimum, and
there wouldn't be this huge fork in the road for new applications (and
existing ones) to make a decision which E toolkit they're going to use.

Are both sides willing to work together to provide a way out of this mess?

If (and I suspect) the answer is no, then I vote for removing ETK and
have it be an outside project. Not that a "vote" has been called...

-Blake

Ibukun Olumuyiwa

2005-10-11 02:50:54 UTC

I say *no*. This ETK serves nothing other than to impede progress,
introduce confusion and serve one particular author's specific
needs/wants. If you guys really think ETK is the greatest thing since
sliced bread, please start another SF project for it. This is not
serving the Enlightenment project any good. Over three years of solid
work and experience have been put into EWL by hardworking developers,
and up to this point nobody has been able to come up with any semblance
of a valid reason why it should be replaced by some upstart piece of
code rudely thrown into CVS by an excited newcomer. This needs to go
away, plain and simple. Any other decision would be utterly immature,
anarchistic and ultimately catastrophic for the E project as a whole. I
appreciate Nathan's modesty in wanting to permit others to "do their
thing", but last I checked, this was the Enlightenment project, not an
international code obfuscation competition. You play with the team, or
you don't.

Ibukun

Post by shadoi
I've been thinking a lot about this whole EWL/ETK mess. Is there ANY
way for these two projects to co-exist? Even share some of the same
code? Could ETK be merged with EWL (perhaps have separate name spaces
for each API under EWL?), at least then, applications can still link to
EWL but use either API style. That is what we're talking about mainly
here, is the fact that ETK emulates GTK while EWL has a new
implementation. I know this would be a lot of work. There's bound to
be useless duplication, but at least it could be kept to a minimum, and
there wouldn't be this huge fork in the road for new applications (and
existing ones) to make a decision which E toolkit they're going to use.
Are both sides willing to work together to provide a way out of this mess?
If (and I suspect) the answer is no, then I vote for removing ETK and
have it be an outside project. Not that a "vote" has been called...
-Blake
-------------------------------------------------------
Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions,
and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)

2005-10-11 06:00:48 UTC

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:50:16 -0500 Ibukun Olumuyiwa <***@computer.org>
babbled:

my quote for this mail:

"can't we just all get along?"

ok everyone back off on the harsh language and mails. first. ETK is in PROTO...
i repeat - PROTO. PROTO PROTO PROTO

PROTO = PROTOTYPE

proto is a playground for code - a place to play with ideas IN code that can be
shared and looked at and commented on.

secondly - moom isnt such an excited newcomer - he's been around for a while.
has likely contributed to about as much code as you have. everyone here (i
guess other than me) was a newcomer once. is this project an ivory tower? or a
bazaar? i can tell you - we dont have the resources to be an ivory tower. i
sure as hell don't have the time. i barely have the time to deal with mail
(like this one) and somewhere inbetween get some code done. if we want to
"manage" this ivory tower - who is going to fulltime do that? who? thats going
to snarf one DEDICATED* person for their entire available time - i guarantee it
now. and what if they go away like about 98%** of people who come to contribute
for a week, then vanish do?

if etk stay a play thing for simon and no one else ever wants to use it - well
that is a vote by the "public" as to if they want it or not (the public being
developers). if people jump on it and use it everywhere suddenly - then well
thats a vote for it. if this spurrs freindly competition then BOTH EWL AND ETK
benefit. you may not rememebr or know of the days when e competed directly with
windowmaker, version for versions we played tit-for-tat feature games. you know
- we BOTH BENEFITTED. benefits are more than just plain code - ideas, solutions
and just swapping compliments and encouragement are GREAT MOTIVATORS.

now if we can all be adult enough to agree to disagree and not turn this into a
schoolyard spat wtih hairpulling in the mud pit***, and get ALONG benefit from
competition. if someoen wanted to compet with evas and made a credible
replacement and eventually even made something better - i'd say "good on you".
it woudl either make me go "thank GOD i dont have to work on evas anymore -
time to port" OR, it'd put the fire under my arse to move evas along and do a
lot of thgins i've put off on the todo list to improve it to compete. i dont
believe in protectionism. i am a big believer of darwinism and competition. if
it werent for that we, as humans, would not exist****

* that means 10-30 hrs a week of managing mail, organising people, watching
they do what they said they would and kicking them when they dont ** figure
pulled out of arse - beware. *** it may be a mud pit - but i dont want to see
any of us in bikinis. no offence! :) **** i am assuming we wont get into any
theological arguments, but if we do - at least it's diverted this thread to
something more productive :)

now as the president in mars attacks said:

"can't we just all.... get along!"

** BOOM **

Post by Ibukun Olumuyiwa
I say *no*. This ETK serves nothing other than to impede progress,
introduce confusion and serve one particular author's specific
needs/wants. If you guys really think ETK is the greatest thing since
sliced bread, please start another SF project for it. This is not
serving the Enlightenment project any good. Over three years of solid
work and experience have been put into EWL by hardworking developers,
and up to this point nobody has been able to come up with any semblance
of a valid reason why it should be replaced by some upstart piece of
code rudely thrown into CVS by an excited newcomer. This needs to go
away, plain and simple. Any other decision would be utterly immature,
anarchistic and ultimately catastrophic for the E project as a whole. I
appreciate Nathan's modesty in wanting to permit others to "do their
thing", but last I checked, this was the Enlightenment project, not an
international code obfuscation competition. You play with the team, or
you don't.
Ibukun

--
------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" --------------
The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) ***@rasterman.com
$BMg9%B?(B ***@deephackmode.org
Tokyo, Japan ($BEl5~(B $BF|K\(B)

Michael Jennings

2005-10-11 12:01:24 UTC

On Tuesday, 11 October 2005, at 16:59:42 (+0900),

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
"can't we just all get along?"

Some of us can. Those of us who are working as a team. Our problem
is with those working *against* the team.

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
ok everyone back off on the harsh language and mails. first. ETK is in PROTO...
i repeat - PROTO. PROTO PROTO PROTO
PROTO = PROTOTYPE

So what? Sure, it's in proto for now. But then what?

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
proto is a playground for code - a place to play with ideas IN code
that can be shared and looked at and commented on.

And so we're commenting. Yay, the system worked! :-)

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
secondly - moom isnt such an excited newcomer - he's been around for
a while. has likely contributed to about as much code as you have.

If that's true (which I doubt), then he's been doing it in secret
behind everyone's backs. And while that may not worry you, it sure
worries me.

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
is this project an ivory tower? or a bazaar?

Going behind everyone's back to undermine an existing project sounds a
lot more like an ivory tower than a bazaar to me.

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
i can tell you - we dont have the resources to be an ivory tower. i
sure as hell don't have the time. i barely have the time to deal
with mail (like this one) and somewhere inbetween get some code
done. if we want to "manage" this ivory tower - who is going to
fulltime do that? who? thats going to snarf one DEDICATED* person
for their entire available time - i guarantee it now. and what if
they go away like about 98%** of people who come to contribute for a
week, then vanish do?

If you want to stay away from the ivory tower model and encourage the
bazaar, then why are you supporting (albeit indirectly) vigilantism
and underhanded political posturing? Where would we be if everyone
chose to do everything their own way instead of cooperating and
working together? We'd have about 15 different versions of
everything, and our progress would be severely stunted.

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
if etk stay a play thing for simon and no one else ever wants to use
it - well that is a vote by the "public" as to if they want it or
not (the public being developers). if people jump on it and use it
everywhere suddenly - then well thats a vote for it. if this spurrs
freindly competition then BOTH EWL AND ETK benefit. you may not
rememebr or know of the days when e competed directly with
windowmaker, version for versions we played tit-for-tat feature
games. you know - we BOTH BENEFITTED. benefits are more than just
plain code - ideas, solutions and just swapping compliments and
encouragement are GREAT MOTIVATORS.

You keep going on and on about competition being good and new ideas
being good and all that. You're ignoring the key issue here. If
Simon had said, "Hey guys, I have some new ideas I'd like to try, a
somewhat different approach to an EFL-based widget set. I thought I
might toss it into proto/ and see what people think," that would've
been different.

The reality is that Simon and Hisham have been whining for ages about
"design problems" with EWL that even *they* can't identify. They've
also been badmouthing and undermining other projects, most
vociferously EWL, at every opportunity. Competition is one thing;
stabbing fellow team members in the back is quite another.

And by defending their behavior, you're validating it. You're
basically saying to Nathan and Dan, "I don't value the work you've
done enough to defend it. I'm quite happy letting others sneak in the
back way and undermine your work by spreading FUD while you're not
around."

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
now if we can all be adult enough to agree to disagree and not turn
this into a schoolyard spat

If you're going to point the Immaturity Finger, I suggest you do so in
the right direction. If Simon's motives are as pure and innocent as
you believe them to be, why all the secrecy? Why the constant
EWL-bashing with no real evidence, discussion, or concensus?

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
if someoen wanted to compet with evas and made a credible
replacement and eventually even made something better - i'd say
"good on you". it woudl either make me go "thank GOD i dont have to
work on evas anymore - time to port" OR, it'd put the fire under my
arse to move evas along and do a lot of thgins i've put off on the
todo list to improve it to compete. i dont believe in
protectionism. i am a big believer of darwinism and competition. if
it werent for that we, as humans, would not exist****

And it wouldn't bother you one bit if that individual or group of
people sat around trashing evas to anyone who'd listen in your own
channel without pointing out any actual flaws or having any code to
back up their arguments?

I think Nathan deserves better than that.

Michael

--
Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX) http://www.kainx.org/ <***@kainx.org>
n + 1, Inc., http://www.nplus1.net/ Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"You can bend over for Blue Cross, and you can bend over for Kaiser.
Blue Cross is nice because they give you two ways to bend over."
-- anonymous co-worker

Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)

2005-10-11 14:10:30 UTC

Post by Michael Jennings
On Tuesday, 11 October 2005, at 16:59:42 (+0900),

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
"can't we just all get along?"

Some of us can. Those of us who are working as a team. Our problem
is with those working *against* the team.

i dont see anything working against - its in parallel and its in a prototype
dir. is he commiting bad code to ewl to make it worse? how is it working
against?

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
ok everyone back off on the harsh language and mails. first. ETK is in
PROTO... i repeat - PROTO. PROTO PROTO PROTO
PROTO = PROTOTYPE

So what? Sure, it's in proto for now. But then what?

so is enterminus - has it mvoed from there in months? no. it's stayed. nice
toy. that's it.

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
proto is a playground for code - a place to play with ideas IN code
that can be shared and looked at and commented on.

And so we're commenting. Yay, the system worked! :-)

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
secondly - moom isnt such an excited newcomer - he's been around for
a while. has likely contributed to about as much code as you have.

If that's true (which I doubt), then he's been doing it in secret
behind everyone's backs. And while that may not worry you, it sure
worries me.

he hasn't

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
is this project an ivory tower? or a bazaar?

Going behind everyone's back to undermine an existing project sounds a
lot more like an ivory tower than a bazaar to me.

how is it GOING BEHIND BACKS? its in the open. its in cvs. rtheres a
disagreement - between mimicking gtk's api to make it easy to port or learn, or
doing something different. how do YOU propose to have both teams work on the
same code? really?

what? i have not been supporting anyone? i am trying to bloody well calm the
flamefest. but people keep trying to stoke up the fires.

he did just that - he asked me - i went "put it in proto - see what peolpe
think". man. you guys are seeing reds under every bed. calm down. man i SAID to
put it into proto. i am not going to make email announcments every time someoen
wants to commit a tree of working code. cvs commits does it for me and i'm
alreayd spending too much time on this flamefest.

Post by Michael Jennings
The reality is that Simon and Hisham have been whining for ages about
"design problems" with EWL that even *they* can't identify. They've
also been badmouthing and undermining other projects, most
vociferously EWL, at every opportunity. Competition is one thing;
stabbing fellow team members in the back is quite another.

i have yeard very little badmouthing. i have heard opinions expressed - which
were not vociferous or undermining.

Post by Michael Jennings
And by defending their behavior, you're validating it. You're
basically saying to Nathan and Dan, "I don't value the work you've
done enough to defend it. I'm quite happy letting others sneak in the
back way and undermine your work by spreading FUD while you're not
around."

god damn. i give up. i WROTE SPECIFICALLY that i DO VALUe THE WORK. i give up
at this point. you all will believe whatever it is you want to believe and read
whatever you want to read into it. my attempts to calm things and keep neutral
and stop whats becoming a lynching are pointless. i am leaning to their side
because THEY are being attacked. not because i am condoning anything. you are
using awfully strong words for something you dont even know all the facts of.

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
now if we can all be adult enough to agree to disagree and not turn
this into a schoolyard spat

reds under the bed. i repeat. there was no "secrecy" there is no "conspiracy"
theory. simon came to me personally saying that he and nathan disagree on
fundamental ewl issues and hes' going to try something - in my quick
positiveness i said "sure - try". 99.9% of the time anyone ever says they will
do aytning they never come trhough with the goods. i am taking his word at ti
that they disagree. i also saw that ont he mailing lists - simon did start up
some conversation. i am not going to dig it out right now. anyway - he actual -
UNLIKe 99.9% of people, DID SOMETHING - WOW! and crap. it actually worked.
would you believe it. so he asked if he can put it in - i said to put it in
proto and see what peolpe think. i didn thear from him for a long time beyond
him asking edje and evas questions and bringing up some issues that he even
gave me pathes for to improve edje and evas.

man - peolpe do that anyway. i've grown a thick skin. as for trashing - i have
yet to see this trashing - i have seen comments that basically say "i dont like
ewl's overall design, look and feel, and i think the api could be
different/better" thats a rough summary - i have not seen any rude or
vociferous language used or any of this supposed bashing. maybe i have become
too cynical, jaded and thick skinned to notice it and what i take as merely
comments you take as bashing.

Post by Michael Jennings
I think Nathan deserves better than that.

now i repeat - READ THIS TIME. nathan, dan, martin, ben and many others deserve
big kudos for ewl and it is GOOD. they have done a GREAT JOB.

now let me summarise:

1. there is no conspiracy - it wasnt snuck in. it wasnt done behind backs. if
they wanted to do so they could have set up a closed private cvs on sf.net and
done it away from anyones sight. 2. i have not seen any bashing. it may have
happened - maybe multiple times. i have not seen it. 3. as for negative
discussions of ewl i have asked that any ewl discussions happen with authors
present already. 4. can't we all just get along. this flamefest is not doing
anyone any good. 5. pick up, move on. what do we hope to GAIN by continuing
this? the only conclusions are "kick hisham and simon out of the e group" and
frankly - there's way too much flakeyness to go kicking people out who are
active and DOING things. 6. everyone writing code is doing SOMETHING positive.
those not writing code but maintaining websitse, contents, FAQs/docs, helping
users on mailing lists or irc are ALSO doing something positive. 7. i repeat
Nathan, Dan, Martin, Ben, etc. etc. have done VERY GOOD WORK. they should BE
PROUD OF IT. 8. everyone now go to the bar, have a beer, play some pool, relax,
chill... peace love and flowery things.

:)

--
------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" --------------
The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) ***@rasterman.com
$BMg9%B?(B ***@deephackmode.org
Tokyo, Japan ($BEl5~(B $BF|K\(B)

Michael Jennings

2005-10-11 15:33:06 UTC

On Wednesday, 12 October 2005, at 01:10:14 (+0900),

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
i dont see anything working against - its in parallel and its in a
prototype dir. is he commiting bad code to ewl to make it worse? how
is it working against?

Have you not noticed the frustration and anger it has caused? THAT is
how it's working against the team.

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
so is enterminus - has it mvoed from there in months? no. it's
stayed. nice toy. that's it.

The intent is different.

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
how is it GOING BEHIND BACKS? its in the open. its in cvs.

You're talking about NOW. I'm talking about BEFORE. Even Simon
himself admits he kept it a secret. Putting what is essentially an
EWL replacement into CVS without so much as a courtesy e-mail to
Nathan is going behind people's backs. You may not agree with me, but
I bet Nathan does, and I know others do too.

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
rtheres a disagreement - between mimicking gtk's api to make it easy
to port or learn, or doing something different. how do YOU propose
to have both teams work on the same code? really?

Wrap EWL in a Gtk-like set of API calls. Is it possible? Is it
practical? I have no idea. That's why we DISCUSS things as a GROUP,
not go around making unilateral decisions that affect the project as a
whole.

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
what? i have not been supporting anyone? i am trying to bloody well
calm the flamefest. but people keep trying to stoke up the fires.

You've been defending their actions. Your comments have "scolded"
those in the EWL camp for what you perceive as their wrongdoings, but
not once have you confronted the ETK people for what they've done.
Sorry, that's taking sides.

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
he did just that - he asked me - i went "put it in proto - see what
peolpe think".

That's fine, but that's not all he should've done. Common courtesy
would dictate at MINIMUM dropping Nathan a note.

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
man. you guys are seeing reds under every bed. calm down. man i SAID
to put it into proto.

That should've been communicated to others.

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
i am not going to make email announcments every time someoen wants
to commit a tree of working code.

You don't have to. But Simon should've, at least to Nathan.

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
cvs commits does it for me and i'm alreayd spending too much time on
this flamefest.

Then stop trying to get in the middle.

People have valid concerns that should be addressed. There are
questions to which Nathan and Dan deserve answers that only Simon and
Hisham can give.

I respect that you're trying to play peacemaker, but in doing so,
you're only making the rift worse and preventing communication.

This all boils down to that: COMMUNICATION. If everyone, yourself
and myself included, would put a higher priority on communications,
this type of thing would be far less frequent.

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
i have yeard very little badmouthing. i have heard opinions
expressed - which were not vociferous or undermining.

And you're not around much of the time. Just because you don't see it
doesn't mean it's not happening.

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
god damn. i give up. i WROTE SPECIFICALLY that i DO VALUe THE
WORK. i give up at this point. you all will believe whatever it is
you want to believe and read whatever you want to read into it. my
attempts to calm things and keep neutral and stop whats becoming a
lynching are pointless. i am leaning to their side because THEY are
being attacked. not because i am condoning anything. you are using
awfully strong words for something you dont even know all the facts
of.

If I don't know all the facts, then enlighten me. I'm talking about
communication and cooperation. Not knowing all the facts is merely a
symptom of the very problem I'm referring to here! There should've
been better communication.

As for valuing their work, I know you do. And you've said as much. I
was saying that the way the situation was handled could be interpreted
in the opposite way.

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
reds under the bed. i repeat. there was no "secrecy"

Simon himself admitted there was:

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=enlightenment-devel&m=112875966103118&w=2

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
simon came to me personally saying that he and nathan disagree on
fundamental ewl issues

Ah, there's the rub. Did he say WHAT issues they disagree on?
Because as far as I can tell, no actual issues have been discussed.

**************
If nobody gets anything else from this entire conversation, get this:
If there are issues, disagreements, dislikes, or any other conflicts
regarding EWL, for fuck's sake, SAY SOMETHING! That's really the
bottom line here. If there's a disagreement, then let's disagree! So
far that I've seen, no one has actually pointed out any disagreements
at all.
**************

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
and hes' going to try something - in my quick positiveness i said
"sure - try".

That's fine. Personally, I'd have asked what the disagreements were
first, but that's not to say I'm faulting you for not doing so.

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
99.9% of the time anyone ever says they will do aytning they never
come trhough with the goods. i am taking his word at ti that they
disagree. i also saw that ont he mailing lists - simon did start up
some conversation. i am not going to dig it out right now. anyway -
he actual - UNLIKe 99.9% of people, DID SOMETHING - WOW! and
crap. it actually worked. would you believe it. so he asked if he
can put it in - i said to put it in proto and see what peolpe
think. i didn thear from him for a long time beyond him asking edje
and evas questions and bringing up some issues that he even gave me
pathes for to improve edje and evas.

I assume you're talking about this e-mail from July 14th:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=enlightenment-devel&m=112137986609349&w=2

Not one of those issues is a design issue. They're all behavior
requests, and all can easily be rectified (I would think).

I will grant you that no one replied to his e-mail, and someone
should've. But creating an entirely new widget set instead of
correcting behavior in the existing one defies logic. You wonder why
we suspect that there's more going on here than meets the eye? That's
why.

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
man - peolpe do that anyway. i've grown a thick skin. as for
trashing - i have yet to see this trashing - i have seen comments
that basically say "i dont like ewl's overall design, look and feel,
and i think the api could be different/better" thats a rough summary
- i have not seen any rude or vociferous language used or any of
this supposed bashing. maybe i have become too cynical, jaded and
thick skinned to notice it and what i take as merely comments you
take as bashing.

Those comments are meaningless, though. Not one of them is a concrete
example. It's like saying "I don't like Carsten." That could mean
anything from "Carsten smells funny" to "Carsten's mom ate my last
doughnut!"

Nathan has asked and asked and asked for concrete examples of flaws in
the design and/or API. As far as I know, he has yet to receive a
single one. If I'm wrong in that, please point me to the location.

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
1. there is no conspiracy - it wasnt snuck in. it wasnt done behind
backs. if they wanted to do so they could have set up a closed
private cvs on sf.net and done it away from anyones sight.

Which, ironically, probably would've been better. :-)

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
3. as for negative discussions of ewl i have asked that any ewl
discussions happen with authors present already.

I would also ask that they be constructive and offer concrete
criticisms, not just wide-open airy statements like "I dislike the
API."

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
4. can't we all just get along. this flamefest is not doing anyone
any good.

If it gets the ETK folks to start talking more and pointing out flaws
in EWL, then it will. Or it will bring to light the fact that they
are either unable or unwilling to do so, and that, too, is a good
thing to know.

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
5. pick up, move on. what do we hope to GAIN by continuing this? the
only conclusions are "kick hisham and simon out of the e group" and
frankly - there's way too much flakeyness to go kicking people out
who are active and DOING things.

I'm not advocating kicking anyone out. As far as I can tell, no one
has advocated that. What I *am* saying is that people need to work
more as a team.

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
7. i repeat Nathan, Dan, Martin, Ben, etc. etc. have done VERY GOOD
WORK. they should BE PROUD OF IT.

Agreed.

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
8. everyone now go to the bar, have a beer, play some pool, relax,
chill... peace love and flowery things.

You know I don't drink beer. :-P

***

The way I see it, I'm not trying to have a "flamefest." I'm trying to
draw out, beat out, guilt out, etc. the truth. I want communication.
I want honesty. I want to focus on making the best code we can make
in the most efficient, most effective way possible. That means
working together toward a common goal.

Michael

--
Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX) http://www.kainx.org/ <***@kainx.org>
n + 1, Inc., http://www.nplus1.net/ Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Can we leave the world outside just for awhile, just for awhile?
Spend some time, you and I, under this bright, glorious sky? It's
been so long since I first saw you, but I still love the smile in
your eyes." -- Roxette, "Church of Your Heart"

Jason Smith

2005-10-11 16:30:57 UTC

Post by Michael Jennings
Then stop trying to get in the middle.
People have valid concerns that should be addressed. There are
questions to which Nathan and Dan deserve answers that only Simon and
Hisham can give.
I respect that you're trying to play peacemaker, but in doing so,
you're only making the rift worse and preventing communication.
This all boils down to that: COMMUNICATION. If everyone, yourself
and myself included, would put a higher priority on communications,
this type of thing would be far less frequent.

I am not a developer so what I say may be misguided, but from what
I've seen the only thing that's going to help this situation is for
Hisham/Simon and Nathan/Dan to discuss the problem and come up with a
solution. You say "Then stop trying to get in the middle" I think
everyone should take that advice. Nothing good is coming from
everyone else talking about this, the situation is getting more
heated and more destructive with every e-mail.

Jason

Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)

2005-10-11 23:25:29 UTC

Post by Michael Jennings
On Wednesday, 12 October 2005, at 01:10:14 (+0900),

Have you not noticed the frustration and anger it has caused? THAT is
how it's working against the team.

only from those not directly concerned witht he issues. nathat said early on -
he doesnt care EXCEPt that he didnt get any chance to discuss the issues
earlier on because of lack of communication from simon's end. i dont see anger
and frustration. i see mild disappointment.

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
so is enterminus - has it mvoed from there in months? no. it's
stayed. nice toy. that's it.

The intent is different.

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
how is it GOING BEHIND BACKS? its in the open. its in cvs.

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
what? i have not been supporting anyone? i am trying to bloody well
calm the flamefest. but people keep trying to stoke up the fires.

i have scoled those basically wanting to veto someones code. in a separate
tree. in a prototype sandpit. it's like defending freedom of speech, but within
the project. freedom of code. if someoen wants to break an existing tree - then
that is a problem. if they build another one that is separate they have done no
damage. any damage is self-inflicted by the people complaining by liking to
think there is a conspiracy.

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
he did just that - he asked me - i went "put it in proto - see what
peolpe think".

That's fine, but that's not all he should've done. Common courtesy
would dictate at MINIMUM dropping Nathan a note.

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
man. you guys are seeing reds under every bed. calm down. man i SAID
to put it into proto.

That should've been communicated to others.

it was - cvs commit logs. there are automated systems in place.

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
i am not going to make email announcments every time someoen wants
to commit a tree of working code.

You don't have to. But Simon should've, at least to Nathan.

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
cvs commits does it for me and i'm alreayd spending too much time on
this flamefest.

Then stop trying to get in the middle.

because it's turing into a "we want to kick simon an hisham out because we dont
like a piece of code that competes with older code". i have kept out of it
until it turned into that. thus i defend because as i said - its turning into a
lynching.

Post by Michael Jennings
People have valid concerns that should be addressed. There are
questions to which Nathan and Dan deserve answers that only Simon and
Hisham can give.
I respect that you're trying to play peacemaker, but in doing so,
you're only making the rift worse and preventing communication.

and in continuing this flamewar you are only worsening it. i want there to be
peace and quiety - if there is a lynching of a flamewar - or both you have
snowballs chance of there ever being any discussion.

Post by Michael Jennings
This all boils down to that: COMMUNICATION. If everyone, yourself
and myself included, would put a higher priority on communications,
this type of thing would be far less frequent.

i'd love to see that - but maybe some PATIENCE would help? i know i have a 4
week backlog on email i have marked for reply - and it grows. 4 weeks is pretty
good for me. for example.

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
i have yeard very little badmouthing. i have heard opinions
expressed - which were not vociferous or undermining.

And you're not around much of the time. Just because you don't see it
doesn't mean it's not happening.

i will accept that - if its happened - i havent seen it. and as i said - i have
already looked into that issue.

i'm doubting communication is working with you - even if i put it in plain
black and white that i do value - highly - the work on ewl, you turn around and
say i don't. (read back through the thread). thats a point at which i give up.

Post by Michael Jennings
As for valuing their work, I know you do. And you've said as much. I
was saying that the way the situation was handled could be interpreted
in the opposite way.

then why is it i went to lengths to clarify that it is not intended as such and
not meant to be such and i specifically wanted to stop this lines of reasonsing
before it began. but you want to keep going down that line anyway. this is what
i wanted to stop. i want there to be calm on the western front.

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
reds under the bed. i repeat. there was no "secrecy"

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=enlightenment-devel&m=112875966103118&w=2

i would take that usage of english with a grain of salt - and replace with
"quiet". i have some reasonable experience transliterating english to english
used by foreigners. hell - english isn't even my native tongue.

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
simon came to me personally saying that he and nathan disagree on
fundamental ewl issues

Ah, there's the rub. Did he say WHAT issues they disagree on?
Because as far as I can tell, no actual issues have been discussed.
**************
If there are issues, disagreements, dislikes, or any other conflicts
regarding EWL, for fuck's sake, SAY SOMETHING! That's really the
bottom line here. If there's a disagreement, then let's disagree! So
far that I've seen, no one has actually pointed out any disagreements
at all.
**************

even in the mail link - you have communication there. from simon's end he
believes things didnt move with ewl to improve, nathan believes simon wasnt
communicating back - there is a breakdown in communication, but that's not a
reason to go lynch.

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
and hes' going to try something - in my quick positiveness i said
"sure - try".

That's fine. Personally, I'd have asked what the disagreements were
first, but that's not to say I'm faulting you for not doing so.

i did - it was the "i dont think i can do this with ewl's design and that means
i want to change large parts and nathan doesnt think we need to". it was
already a disagreement. maybe they coudl have spent longer in "talks". i don't
know. it could have been an idea - i'll give that to you for sure, but
seemingly it isnt working and well - more code is more code. yes it's lgpl -
and i know as long as it remains as such i'd use etk as nothing more than an
incentive system and a "hey cool - it works" and as a learning device for simon
and anyone else working on it.

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=enlightenment-devel&m=112137986609349&w=2
Not one of those issues is a design issue. They're all behavior
requests, and all can easily be rectified (I would think).

simon said he sent patches but didnt see them committed. its a breakdown of
communication here.

Post by Michael Jennings
I will grant you that no one replied to his e-mail, and someone
should've. But creating an entirely new widget set instead of
correcting behavior in the existing one defies logic. You wonder why
we suspect that there's more going on here than meets the eye? That's
why.

well to calm your fears - there isnt. its 2 people who disagree and dont see
eye to eye on a topic that is important to them. :(

ok - fine - soemoen doesnt like me. i am not going to waste my time agonising
over why. :)

Post by Michael Jennings
Nathan has asked and asked and asked for concrete examples of flaws in
the design and/or API. As far as I know, he has yet to receive a
single one. If I'm wrong in that, please point me to the location.

no he hasn't (recieved any really detailed answer) but then again simon has
been fairly quiet on the subject. but as simon said - he sent patches, they
didnt go in, there was some breakdown and he decided to fix his own problems
his own way instead of argue about them i guess.

Which, ironically, probably would've been better. :-)

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
3. as for negative discussions of ewl i have asked that any ewl
discussions happen with authors present already.

I would also ask that they be constructive and offer concrete
criticisms, not just wide-open airy statements like "I dislike the
API."

i'd agree and disagree - if they dislike it - fine. thats a valid opinion of an
api, but examples of what is disliked and how it can be improved (X vs Y) would
be good.

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
4. can't we all just get along. this flamefest is not doing anyone
any good.

I'm not advocating kicking anyone out. As far as I can tell, no one
has advocated that. What I *am* saying is that people need to work
more as a team.

"Hardly. Another solution (and my favorite, by the way) is that ETK
be removed from CVS. You can start your own project on SourceForge if..."

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
7. i repeat Nathan, Dan, Martin, Ben, etc. etc. have done VERY GOOD
WORK. they should BE PROUD OF IT.

Agreed.

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
8. everyone now go to the bar, have a beer, play some pool, relax,
chill... peace love and flowery things.

You know I don't drink beer. :-P

you do now! so open wide! :) ok - i'll allow you to have a long island ice tea
instead :)

Post by Michael Jennings
***
The way I see it, I'm not trying to have a "flamefest." I'm trying to
draw out, beat out, guilt out, etc. the truth. I want communication.
I want honesty. I want to focus on making the best code we can make
in the most efficient, most effective way possible. That means
working together toward a common goal.

ok. very laudible goals. but lets not do it with beatings. :) lets chill
actually let people talk. :)

Post by Michael Jennings
Michael
--
n + 1, Inc., http://www.nplus1.net/ Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Can we leave the world outside just for awhile, just for awhile?
Spend some time, you and I, under this bright, glorious sky? It's
been so long since I first saw you, but I still love the smile in
your eyes." -- Roxette, "Church of Your Heart"
-------------------------------------------------------
Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions,
and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

--
------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" --------------
The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) ***@rasterman.com
$BMg9%B?(B ***@deephackmode.org
Tokyo, Japan ($BEl5~(B $BF|K\(B)

Nathan Ingersoll

2005-10-13 21:15:25 UTC

raster, I just wanted to clarify a couple of your points. The email linked
that shows a message from Simon that didn't get a response, it was followed
closely by a similar email from Hisham which I did respond to, so I didn't
feel it was necessary to respond with duplicate information on the same
list. The patch submitted had problems, and I asked him to test it against
some existing code and did not receive any further communication on the
matter. My guess is he judged EWL based on the grid widget which he was
trying to patch. That widget is one of a few containers that have gone
unmaintained, so the code is not in good condition.

Maybe I hid it well in my previous messages, but there IS a degree of
frustration on my part. Primarily, because I felt (and currently feel) that
there was intentional deception when it was not necessary. The IRC
communications we've had (Hisham, Simon, dan and myself) have been
frustrating, unproductive and filled with generic attacks on the design
without any specific design faults given. I illustrated an example of this
in a previous message. It could be a language barrier, but I've never had
language problems with Hisham prior to this, so that would surprise me. So
my frustration doesn't stem from having another set of widgets added to CVS,
but the fact that I can't get any reasoned response on questions I've asked.
I also got the impression that Simon and Hisham were frustrated because dan
and I were not willing to say that EWL had to be rewritten, which leads me
to believe they intentionally kept it quiet to avoid conflict with dan and
myself. I'm willing to take some blame if they felt I was unwilling to
listen, but I made my best effort to get an explanation of their reasoning.

How many times have their been EWL rewrites, new layout engines, and widget
wrappers that have appeared in CVS over the years? At least 5 that I know of
(the current code base is #2 after massive evolution). I didn't really care
then and don't really care now. The only thing different in this case is
that the authors of those projects talked about what they were doing,
explained what they were trying to accomplish, and were communicative about
the process.

Looking ahead, if Simon and Hisham are committed to working as part of the
team, one excellent way to extend an olive branch would be to BSD license
their theme. With the heavy GTK influence I can understand Simon's
reluctance to use a different license, but that only covers the code, not
the theme. I did a quick port of their theme to EWL and it looked pretty
damn good, but there's no chance of this work going into the EWL theme
unless that license is changed. The way the two use edje is too different at
this time to make themes that can be effectively shared between the two, but
I don't see why some sharing can't occur at this level. ETK has the benefit
of using EWL code without fear of license complications, it would be nice if
EWL could do the same with the ETK theme.

I think I've said all I can on this topic, and we've all spent enough time
on it. I do appreciate all of the support from the various developers that
stepped forward when things smelled rotten. I think this has shown one of
the biggest issues this project has always had, communicating ideas and
plans between developers. We have lost a few good devs because of this in
the past and it seems like a ridiculous reason to me. I don't think this is
something that can be managed or imposed, but I do think we can improve it
pretty simply.

Right now, most design discussion happens on IRC, which is great for quick
discussion and brainstorming, but doesn't reach the full audience. So if you
want to help improve communication, drop the list a note when you have an
idea that you might implement. I'm not saying write a long explanation
documenting every detail, just something along the lines of "Hey all, I'm
thinking about writing this application using such and such a method for
organizing the data, anyone have experience with this method or spot some
issues in the idea?" Get some dialog started about it, and you might find
you end up with better results or people willing to pitch in. I'll try to
follow my own advice here and bring up some EWL changes that have been in
the works.

Nathan

Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)

2005-10-14 01:23:56 UTC

Post by Nathan Ingersoll
raster, I just wanted to clarify a couple of your points. The email linked
that shows a message from Simon that didn't get a response, it was followed
closely by a similar email from Hisham which I did respond to, so I didn't
feel it was necessary to respond with duplicate information on the same
list. The patch submitted had problems, and I asked him to test it against
some existing code and did not receive any further communication on the
matter. My guess is he judged EWL based on the grid widget which he was
trying to patch. That widget is one of a few containers that have gone
unmaintained, so the code is not in good condition.
Maybe I hid it well in my previous messages, but there IS a degree of
frustration on my part. Primarily, because I felt (and currently feel) that
there was intentional deception when it was not necessary. The IRC
communications we've had (Hisham, Simon, dan and myself) have been
frustrating, unproductive and filled with generic attacks on the design
without any specific design faults given. I illustrated an example of this
in a previous message. It could be a language barrier, but I've never had
language problems with Hisham prior to this, so that would surprise me. So
my frustration doesn't stem from having another set of widgets added to CVS,
but the fact that I can't get any reasoned response on questions I've asked.
I also got the impression that Simon and Hisham were frustrated because dan
and I were not willing to say that EWL had to be rewritten, which leads me
to believe they intentionally kept it quiet to avoid conflict with dan and
myself. I'm willing to take some blame if they felt I was unwilling to
listen, but I made my best effort to get an explanation of their reasoning.
How many times have their been EWL rewrites, new layout engines, and widget
wrappers that have appeared in CVS over the years? At least 5 that I know of
(the current code base is #2 after massive evolution). I didn't really care
then and don't really care now. The only thing different in this case is
that the authors of those projects talked about what they were doing,
explained what they were trying to accomplish, and were communicative about
the process.
Looking ahead, if Simon and Hisham are committed to working as part of the
team, one excellent way to extend an olive branch would be to BSD license
their theme. With the heavy GTK influence I can understand Simon's
reluctance to use a different license, but that only covers the code, not
the theme. I did a quick port of their theme to EWL and it looked pretty
damn good, but there's no chance of this work going into the EWL theme
unless that license is changed. The way the two use edje is too different at
this time to make themes that can be effectively shared between the two, but
I don't see why some sharing can't occur at this level. ETK has the benefit
of using EWL code without fear of license complications, it would be nice if
EWL could do the same with the ETK theme.

i do think that is a major issue. you dont license something the same as
another project just because the other project heavily influenced its design
and ideas and structure. license applies to COPIES, not influences, ideas,
inspiration. it has to be pretty much a direct copy (and then a derivative from
there). i agree that etk, being lgpl, is not productinve in terms of it being
able to share back. i know i dont plan on even thinking of "blessing it" even
as official competition - if there can be such a thing (you get the idea) as
long as it's lgpl. it basically stands out as a sore thumb in cvs and i 100%
agree with everyone (except simon) on this issue. it should be changed just so
it can be shared - you can share themes (well take the theme and adapt for
ewl), or you can find useful code in etk and use it in ewl, and vice-versa. ewl
is still very mature and is licensed well and has a lot of hard work from
nathan, dan and others over the years behind it. its there and isn't going
anywhere. it has rough edges, sure - as does a lot of code in cvs. evas, ecore
and edje included.

Post by Nathan Ingersoll
I think I've said all I can on this topic, and we've all spent enough time
on it. I do appreciate all of the support from the various developers that
stepped forward when things smelled rotten. I think this has shown one of
the biggest issues this project has always had, communicating ideas and
plans between developers. We have lost a few good devs because of this in
the past and it seems like a ridiculous reason to me. I don't think this is
something that can be managed or imposed, but I do think we can improve it
pretty simply.
Right now, most design discussion happens on IRC, which is great for quick
discussion and brainstorming, but doesn't reach the full audience. So if you
want to help improve communication, drop the list a note when you have an
idea that you might implement. I'm not saying write a long explanation
documenting every detail, just something along the lines of "Hey all, I'm
thinking about writing this application using such and such a method for
organizing the data, anyone have experience with this method or spot some
issues in the idea?" Get some dialog started about it, and you might find
you end up with better results or people willing to pitch in. I'll try to
follow my own advice here and bring up some EWL changes that have been in
the works.

i think a big problem is the spread-out nature of the team. to discuss on email
takes days. you have to wait for timezones to go through their daily routine.
if u are agonising over something - it's nice to get a quick discussion,
feedback and get on with it. i agree that maybe this all hilights a bit of need
to discuss a bit more. but then again i know personally i'm hesitant due to the
massive timesink email is already. i think too that havi0ng code to REFER to
for discussion is good. ie "here is what i mean to say... in CODE". as
programmers code is something that transcends language barriers for all of us
and is a great way of articulating specific ideas. even if the code is a
throw-away thing. proto/ is pretty much the intended forum for such stuff
unless it sa small part of an existing large project.

we need to do 2 things here. 1. be accepting that code going into proto is nto
to be judged, vetoed, ostracised out of the proejct etc. it's a sandpit to help
with developing ideas, discussions, excercizing some other bit of code ina
certian way, etc. and 2. maybe moving some more development discussion to the
enlightenment-devel list and trying to encourage users to put their user
queries and help on enlightenment-users so devel is free for code/design/etc
related discussion, enlightenment-web being revived by ben for website
discussion etc.

so does everyone seem agreed we should try re-assign priorities to the mailing
lists to be more "on topic" (make some announcements and make an effort to
redirect mails to users or web lists etc.) and then maybe free up some mail
"bandwidth" for more discussion?

--
------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" --------------
The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) ***@rasterman.com
$BMg9%B?(B
Tokyo, Japan ($BEl5~(B $BF|K\(B)

David Seikel

2005-10-14 01:34:14 UTC

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 12:19:14 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
so does everyone seem agreed we should try re-assign priorities to
the mailing lists to be more "on topic" (make some announcements and
make an effort to redirect mails to users or web lists etc.) and then
maybe free up some mail "bandwidth" for more discussion?

I agree. On par with the web reorg.

Michael Jennings

2005-10-14 05:46:06 UTC

On Friday, 14 October 2005, at 12:19:14 (+0900),

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
so does everyone seem agreed we should try re-assign priorities to
the mailing lists to be more "on topic" (make some announcements and
make an effort to redirect mails to users or web lists etc.) and
then maybe free up some mail "bandwidth" for more discussion?

Definitely.

Michael

--
Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX) http://www.kainx.org/ <***@kainx.org>
n + 1, Inc., http://www.nplus1.net/ Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Three six nine, the goose drank wine; the monkey chewed tobacco on
the street car line. The line broke, the monkey got choked, and
they all went to heaven in a little row boat." -- Nursery Rhyme

Jason Smith

2005-10-12 22:26:46 UTC

I am not a developer so I am sorry if I misunderstand what is
happening here, but from my perspective this is something that Simon
and Nathan/other EWL developers need to work out.
You tell raster "Then stop trying to get in the middle" Shouldn't
everyone take this advice? This is only going to get more heated and
destructive until the ETK group and the EWL group talk to each other
about it.

Jason

Daniel Kasak

2005-10-12 03:41:40 UTC

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
you guys are seeing reds under every bed.

As a lowly user, I've been watching this thread, partly worried, and
partly amused, but anyway keeping my nose out.
But as a socialist, I resent that comment.

'All Power to the Soviets!'

:)

Dan

Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)

2005-10-12 04:03:55 UTC

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
you guys are seeing reds under every bed.

As a lowly user, I've been watching this thread, partly worried, and
partly amused, but anyway keeping my nose out.
But as a socialist, I resent that comment.
'All Power to the Soviets!'

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA :) note - i am using it as a quote from back int he early
cold war days... :)

Post by Daniel Kasak
:)
Dan
-------------------------------------------------------
Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions,
and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

--
------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" --------------
The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) ***@rasterman.com
$BMg9%B?(B ***@deephackmode.org
Tokyo, Japan ($BEl5~(B $BF|K\(B)

Gabriel Rossetti

2005-10-13 00:44:31 UTC

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)

Poor Carsten...
It is kind of funny in a sort of "dark humor", this thread sounds like a
bunch of women (If any women read this, don't get offened, I showed this
to a female friend and she laughed too) stiring up things and talking
about it at the hair dresser's :-). Like he said : "peace love and
flowery things".

Thanks to everyone that committed *any* code, as a programmer I know
that every little piece deserve's our encouragement.

Gabriel Rossetti

Post by Michael Jennings
On Tuesday, 11 October 2005, at 16:59:42 (+0900),

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
"can't we just all get along?"

Some of us can. Those of us who are working as a team. Our problem
is with those working *against* the team.

i dont see anything working against - its in parallel and its in a prototype
dir. is he commiting bad code to ewl to make it worse? how is it working
against?

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
ok everyone back off on the harsh language and mails. first. ETK is in
PROTO... i repeat - PROTO. PROTO PROTO PROTO
PROTO = PROTOTYPE

So what? Sure, it's in proto for now. But then what?

so is enterminus - has it mvoed from there in months? no. it's stayed. nice
toy. that's it.

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
proto is a playground for code - a place to play with ideas IN code
that can be shared and looked at and commented on.

And so we're commenting. Yay, the system worked! :-)

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
secondly - moom isnt such an excited newcomer - he's been around for
a while. has likely contributed to about as much code as you have.

If that's true (which I doubt), then he's been doing it in secret
behind everyone's backs. And while that may not worry you, it sure
worries me.

he hasn't

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
is this project an ivory tower? or a bazaar?

Going behind everyone's back to undermine an existing project sounds a
lot more like an ivory tower than a bazaar to me.

what? i have not been supporting anyone? i am trying to bloody well calm the
flamefest. but people keep trying to stoke up the fires.

i have yeard very little badmouthing. i have heard opinions expressed - which
were not vociferous or undermining.

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
now if we can all be adult enough to agree to disagree and not turn
this into a schoolyard spat

Post by Michael Jennings
I think Nathan deserves better than that.

now i repeat - READ THIS TIME. nathan, dan, martin, ben and many others deserve
big kudos for ewl and it is GOOD. they have done a GREAT JOB.
1. there is no conspiracy - it wasnt snuck in. it wasnt done behind backs. if
they wanted to do so they could have set up a closed private cvs on sf.net and
done it away from anyones sight. 2. i have not seen any bashing. it may have
happened - maybe multiple times. i have not seen it. 3. as for negative
discussions of ewl i have asked that any ewl discussions happen with authors
present already. 4. can't we all just get along. this flamefest is not doing
anyone any good. 5. pick up, move on. what do we hope to GAIN by continuing
this? the only conclusions are "kick hisham and simon out of the e group" and
frankly - there's way too much flakeyness to go kicking people out who are
active and DOING things. 6. everyone writing code is doing SOMETHING positive.
those not writing code but maintaining websitse, contents, FAQs/docs, helping
users on mailing lists or irc are ALSO doing something positive. 7. i repeat
Nathan, Dan, Martin, Ben, etc. etc. have done VERY GOOD WORK. they should BE
PROUD OF IT. 8. everyone now go to the bar, have a beer, play some pool, relax,
chill... peace love and flowery things.
:)

Valtteri Vainikka

2005-10-13 10:10:02 UTC

Agreed... IŽve tried to stay away from this, but I just canŽt ignore these
mails anymore. While I understand there are various problems and all this
hasnŽt exactly gone the right way, I donŽt think any alternative path would
have been possible, given the personalities and viewpoints involved. This
thread, while it actually started out in a very civil way, has turned into a
more or less immature lynching festival (and is a good example how internal
communication should not go).

I would mostly call this thread a clash of personalities - the actual matter
itself doesnŽt really seem to be the focus in this thread, not anymore at
least.. That said, I wonŽt deny that IŽm personally in the "ETK-camp", so to
speak, but with comments like ""Hardly. Another solution (and my favorite,
by the way) is that ETK be removed from CVS. You can start your own project
on SourceForge if..." itŽs hardly far fetched to say certain individuals
(this doesnŽt mean that some people havenŽt kept a constructive attitude)
here arenŽt exactly being constructive. While everyone has the right to hold
on to his own personality, being blunt and honest, not to mention never
backing down, is not really the way things work in the end, especially not
in a volunteer open source project. I, by the way, would suggest trying out
a more pragmatic approach. It might actually provide a way to build a bridge
to the other side.

Regards,

Valtteri

Post by Gabriel Rossetti
Poor Carsten...
It is kind of funny in a sort of "dark humor", this thread sounds like a
bunch of women (If any women read this, don't get offened, I showed this to
a female friend and she laughed too) stiring up things and talking about it
at the hair dresser's :-). Like he said : "peace love and flowery things".
Thanks to everyone that committed *any* code, as a programmer I know that
every little piece deserve's our encouragement.
Gabriel Rossetti

Ibukun Olumuyiwa

2005-10-10 20:33:43 UTC

I'm going to weigh in on this one a little bit. My apologies if I come off
a little stronger than the previous objections did -- hopefully everyone
can see this matter from a rational viewpoint as I observe it. I really do
not get the point of this effort either, even after the explanation. How
is it that we have *three* different widget toolkit implementations in
CVS, in spite of our shortage of human resources in this project? It is a
massive waste of effort and a major step backwards, in my humble opinion.
We've been working on this for over three years and we still don't have a
decent toolkit to show for it -- and our answer to it is fragmentation?

I really appreciate the amount of work you've done Simon, and I respect
your contributions to this project. But I think this should be killed. And
eblocks too. If there are things in Etk that are implemented better than
in EWL, then if necessary kill the corresponding EWL widget and rewrite it
the better way. There's nothing in EWL that cannot be fixed, even if it
requires major, API-breaking, structure-changing fixes. It's still better
than fragmenting efforts and somehow hoping everything will magically work
together sometime in the distant future. Having two, nay three, widget
toolkits competing in the *same* CVS repository, within the same project,
for a limited number of human resources *is* bad. Very bad. I just don't
see how this is going to move us forward here.

Let's think rationally, get our priorities right and pull our resources
together in the right direction. We've done a lot of work here and the
rest of the world is beginning to see it and appreciate what we have done.
But we can still do much better, and this is not the way.

Ibukun

Post by Simon TRENY
Hi Nathan, Hi Brian,
First, I have to say that I'm sorry for having kept Etk secret and send

it to the CVS without any notification, it was probably the worst way to
proceed.

Post by Simon TRENY
Now, the reasons why I have started Etk: as I always said, I wasn't

fully satisfied with ewl because it didn't worked as I expected it to
do. So I tried for a (short, I agree) moment to improve it by making a
patch for the grid container (which didn't solve all the problems, but
the idea of the fix was there), by making a theme (it has never been
finished because there were a lot of widget size/placement problem with
this theme). I also send a list of 4 bugs/incorrect behaviors for the
menu widgets, but they've never been fixed.

Post by Simon TRENY
Now, that's true that Etk and Ewl are in direct competition, both dev

teams won't give up their job, and the two projects can't blend together
since they are really two different. The only solution I see is that the
two libs will have to coexist, which is not really bad, it could even
become a way to work better/faster (CodeWarrior and I are already
helping each other on eblocks/etk). Some projects will be made with etk,
and other with ewl. The only thing is that it will be definitively
confusing for the user, and will give two different looks to the apps.
For the last point, I think it could be fixed if the themes of Etk and
Ewl become compatible but it may be hard.

Post by Simon TRENY
About the licence, I'm not against the BSD licence, it's just that Etk

takes a lot of concepts from GTK (hence the name Etk): properties,
signals, resize system and the API. No code has been taken, everything
has been recoded, but I'm not sure it won't cause licence problems
anyway. So for now, it will stay under LGPL until I'm sure there is no
licence problem.

Post by Simon TRENY
Regards,
Simon TRENY <MoOm>

Post by Brian Mattern
I'm getting a segv on etk_test here (bt below). I have to agree with

Nathan though. I definitely see nothing wrong with implementing your own
toolkit. However, we could probably get ALOT more done if we pooled our
efforts instead of constantly redoing things. I am curious also, as to
what faults EWL has that led you to design and write your own toolkit.

Post by Brian Mattern
There are definitely two main styles of toolkits in E right now. A

traditional, packed toolkit (ewl, etk, eblocks), and an edje + smart
object based toolkit (esmart, various smartobjs in apps/e). I definitely
see these two styles as coexisting nicely, and worth the somewhat
duplicated effort. However, I really fail to see the need for multiple
packed toolkits.

Post by Brian Mattern
Some other little things. Before committing large projects to CVS (even

to proto), send a note to the list explaining what the project is. Also,
in your initial commit, make the message a little more descriptive. So,
instead of "Import of Eczema", say "Import of Eczema, a new application
that cures that obnoxious condition everyone's been mistaking for
dandruff all these years..."

Post by Brian Mattern
As for licensing, you're definitely free to build on our code and slap

whatever the hell license you want on it (we DO use the anarchist
license after all...) BUT, its still a bit rude. And means your library
won't get as much usage by E folk. (MEJ'll give you hell... :):)

Post by Brian Mattern
Anyway, I hope you don't think we're attacking you. Simply looking for

explanations as to why you made the decisions you did.

Post by Brian Mattern
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
[Switching to Thread 16384 (LWP 2440)]
0x00002aaaad08a12c in ecore_str_hash (key=0x1) at ecore_value.c:69 69

for (i = 0; k[i] != '\0'; i++) {

Post by Brian Mattern
(gdb) bt
#0 0x00002aaaad08a12c in ecore_str_hash (key=0x1) at ecore_value.c:69 #1

0x00002aaaad0840a5 in _ecore_hash_get_node (hash=0x52b4d0, key=0x1) at
ecore_hash.c:458

Post by Brian Mattern
#2 0x00002aaaad08413e in ecore_hash_get (hash=0x1, key=0x0)
at ecore_hash.c:361
#3 0x00002aaaaabcd23c in etk_type_property_find (type=0x1,
name=0x1 <Address 0x1 out of bounds>, property_owner=0x7fffffb9fb78,

property=0x7fffffb9fb80) at etk_type.c:347

Post by Brian Mattern
#4 0x00002aaaaabcd94a in etk_object_properties_set_valist
(object=0x52bbf0,
first_property=0x0, args=0x7fffffb9fbd0) at etk_object.c:358
#5 0x00002aaaaabcdac0 in etk_object_new_valist (object_type=0x52b3a0,

first_property=0x2aaaaabe1e60 "theme_group", args=0x7fffffb9fbd0) at
etk_object.c:111

Post by Brian Mattern
#6 0x00002aaaaabcfef4 in etk_widget_new (widget_type=0x52b3a0,
first_property=0x2aaaaabe1e60 "theme_group") at etk_widget.c:212 #7

0x00002aaaaabda178 in etk_button_new_with_label (label=0x40428c
"Button")

Post by Brian Mattern
at etk_button.c:99
#8 0x0000000000402206 in main (argc=1, argv=0x0) at etk_test.c:63
--
rephorm

Post by Nathan Ingersoll
MoOm,
It looks like you've put considerable effort into this already. It
doesn't
bother me that you wanted to write your own toolkit rather than use

EWL, everyone has their own API style and approach to specific
problems. That being said, I am bothered by the fact dj2 and I asked
you numerous times what fundamental design issues in EWL were a problem
for you, and we

Post by Nathan Ingersoll
never
got a response other than some bug reports on individual widgets and a

patch for the grid widget which did not get applied because you didn't
respond to my questions about breaking equate.

Post by Nathan Ingersoll
I took a brief look at etk after seeing the commit, and felt a couple

comments needed to be made. First off, the LGPL license. I don't think

Post by Nathan Ingersoll
we
have a "rule" but most E projects are BSD+advertising licensed. By

using the LGPL, you've locked that code out of being re-used in any BSD

Post by Nathan Ingersoll
licensed
portion of the project w/o converting that portion to LGPL as well. You

have also created a theme (incorporating the e17 images w/o
attribution) that we cannot re-use w/o using the LGPL license.
Secondly, it appears you're following the GTK+ API very closely, if you
are happy with that

Post by Nathan Ingersoll
API
design and the choice of an LGPL license, why not write a backend to
GTK+
rather than write a full library cloning it's API (this question applies
to
CodeWarrior and eblocks too)? I have not looked at it in depth, but the

default theme does not display correctly on OS X (probably a CPP
portability issue), it's a black window with some text.

Post by Nathan Ingersoll

Enlightenment CVS committal
Author : moom16
Project : e17
Module : proto
Dir : e17/proto/etk/data/themes/default/widgets
button.edc check_button.edc entry.edc radio_button.edc
scale.edc scrollbar.edc toggle_button.edc tree.edc windows.edc
* Etk first commit
-------------------------------------------------------
Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads,
discussions,
and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-cvs mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-cvs

-------------------------------------------------------
Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads,

discussions, and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl

Post by Brian Mattern
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

-------------------------------------------------------
Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads,

discussions, and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl

Post by Simon TRENY
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

--
http://xcomputerman.com

Jose O Gonzalez

2005-10-12 01:35:30 UTC

Everyone here would do well to pay attention to what
Carsten has been trying to say on this issue -- he is being
very much the voice of reason and moderation.

If I may add my own thoughts on this..

All progress depends very much on having "excited newcomers",
some of these eventually become entrenched old-timers, and even
better, re-excited old-timers.
I remember reading once, long ago, an interview by an excited
newcomer named Michael Jennings.. an interview he did of two, more or
less, old-timers known as "raster" and "mandrake".

Even the ivory towers of academic institutions know the need
for new-comers, new-ideas, new-work,... even ones that may question
"old ways". How is it that some "bazaars" fail to see this?
Without the constant influx of new blood, and/or the willingness
to "consider" new work, new ideas, new directions, etc.. there is little
or no progress, there is instead stagnation and solidification. Witness
the not-so-long-ago events around XFree86.

It's easy for old-timers to feel 'threatened' by the new, even
more so when there is overlap or competition in work.. suddenly there
or not. But one must learn to overcome this and view things in a positive
light instead.
As Carsten has pointed out, there are many, many possibilities that
can come of this.. good ones, if things are taken in a positive light.

Oddly, in this ewl/etk case it seems that those in the two camps
do seem to view things mostly in a positive light, and it seems to be
mainly others who in fact do not even use ewl (or etk), who are acting
as though they feel 'threatened' somehow.

I personally do not know enough about ewl or etk to comment on
any relative pluses or minuses or whatnot.. But there is one very
very telling reality that anyone from "outside" first sees:

If ewl is indeed the "official" gui toolkit of enlightenment,
and it is the result of years of work... then how is it that none
of the major programs that are associated as being "e"... actually
use it? None do.

This may very well have little to do with ewl, and would likely
be the case if it were etk say.. It may also be a reflection on the
overall state of gui-toolkit libs period.. there are changes in the air
everywhere.. But regardless, it's a very visible state to 'outside'
developers and even users of the programs.

As to issues of "secrecy", "conspiracies", and whatnot...

I personally have no idea, but if it means anything to anyone:
I have, and know of, no secret conspiracies on anything.
I've been trying to do some work on evas, mainly internal stuff
and some extensions to add more vgfx support, and have lately come
to see some things that I believe could be done better, etc.
The fact is that evas is, more or less, fine for the way it is
being used right now.. and if Carsten makes it even better before I do,
and/or makes all I've done irreleveant or un-needed.. then so much the
better as far as I'm concerned.

But if any of it ever does see the light of day, and is perceived
as useful, and becomes "applied", etc... it would affect etk as much
as ewl, since both use the same -- evas and edje.

Listen to raster.

Arlo

2005-10-12 02:35:45 UTC

I hesitate to add more to this thread but I feel compelled to; so here's
my two cents...

The time put into etk is paid by those that work on it; so if they felt
it was worth the time, then let them spend it. They don't HAVE to work
on the syndicated project. Introducing a competitor they way they did
may have been surprising, but it's not illegitimate.

Those "defending" the ewl camp should reconsider consider why they are
so adamant about defending it. If etk is indeed better than the end
user deserves etk. If there are in fact flaws within ewl, then etk
ought to at least help expose those through competition. To censor etk
because you feel threatened is arrogant.

The only foul play that can arise from this is through bias and
advertising. If people become convinced that ewl or etk is better than
the other without basing the claim on facts THAT will cause the project
to suffer. Decisions need to come from clear reasoning and facts.
Introducing etk is not a decision, it is an option, the decision still
needs to be made. Some decisions can be made without creating an
experiment, but jumping to the experiment is OK. Some people like to
think before they experiment; others jump straight to experimenting.
But like I said, it's not like they forced your effort into their
experiment, the few megabytes used in proto aren't going to cause you
suffering. If you don't like it, ignore it, or better yet, explain why
you don't like it or what it lacks or why your design is better.

Like others have stated, competition is generally a good thing, but
cooperation would be even better. Ideally these two projects will be
cooperatively competitive and eventually merge into one or the other.
Though for that to happen people need to calm down first and be
reasonable, as Raster said.

Arlo

Michael Jennings

2005-10-12 13:31:31 UTC

On Tuesday, 11 October 2005, at 21:36:56 (-0700),

Post by Arlo
The time put into etk is paid by those that work on it; so if they
felt it was worth the time, then let them spend it. They don't HAVE
to work on the syndicated project. Introducing a competitor they
way they did may have been surprising, but it's not illegitimate.

I will refer you to my previous posts rather than rehashing old
conversations.

Post by Arlo
Those "defending" the ewl camp should reconsider consider why they
are so adamant about defending it. If etk is indeed better than the
end user deserves etk. If there are in fact flaws within ewl, then
etk ought to at least help expose those through competition. To
censor etk because you feel threatened is arrogant.

This entire paragraph exists solely because its author has failed to
adequately comprehend or correctly interpret the discussion to this
point.

No one feels threatened. Frustrated? Yes. Confused? Absolutely.
Discouraged? A bit. Why? Let's review some facts:

1. Simon has spoken out against EWL.
2. Simon has mentioned specific flaws in EWL which are (were?) easily
fixed.
3. Simon has demonstrated twice now that he prefers to do his own
thing (first eclair, now ETK) rather than work with what's already
there (euphoria, EWL), though he doesn't really say why exactly.
4. People have worked very hard on EWL and are quite satisfied with
its design and its progress to date.
5. Their work has been dismissed out of hand, with little or no
reason, by a fellow developer who obviously possesses the talent
to spot problems *and* the talent to contribute to any project he
chooses to.

The inescapable conclusion based on this progression of facts is that
there must be something fundamentally wrong with EWL in Simon's mind.
But what is it?

We don't know the answer to that question; only Simon does. But that
answer is significant and important to both projects, and to E as a
whole. So we *will* wait for it.

Post by Arlo
The only foul play that can arise from this is through bias and
advertising. If people become convinced that ewl or etk is better
than the other without basing the claim on facts THAT will cause the
project to suffer.

Thank you for restating my point, albeit in different words. :)

Post by Arlo
Decisions need to come from clear reasoning and facts.

Couldn't agree more.

Post by Arlo
If you don't like it, ignore it, or better yet, explain why you
don't like it or what it lacks or why your design is better.

The irony, of course, is that this is exactly what we're asking of
Simon. We cannot respond to mere claims like "ETK is better than
EWL." We need, as you put it, clear reasoning and facts.

Post by Arlo
Like others have stated, competition is generally a good thing, but
cooperation would be even better.

Bingo.

Post by Arlo
Though for that to happen people need to calm down first and be
reasonable, as Raster said.

Raster knows me, though many here don't, so he knows the following
about me:

1. I'm very blunt and direct. I call it like I see it, and I don't
mince words.
2. I'm honest, perhaps overly so. If I see someone doing or saying
something moronic, I'm far more likely to say, "You're a moron,"
than to say, "You may want to re-examine your words/actions as
they do not seem as well-thought-out as they should, in my
opinion, be."
3. I come across more harshly than I actually am. While I may seem
angry, I rarely am. I don't get agitated easily.
4. I don't readily back down.

Michael

--
Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX) http://www.kainx.org/ <***@kainx.org>
n + 1, Inc., http://www.nplus1.net/ Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you can scrounge up another brain cell, you might captivate us
further...but I doubt it. You couldn't get a clue during
clue-mating season in a field full of horny clues if you smeared
your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance." -- OS2Bot

Michael Jennings

2005-10-12 13:00:56 UTC

On Tuesday, 11 October 2005, at 23:33:18 (-0400),

Post by Jose O Gonzalez
I remember reading once, long ago, an interview by an excited
newcomer named Michael Jennings.. an interview he did of two, more
or less, old-timers known as "raster" and "mandrake".

You are mistaken. Was I a newcomer once? Yes, absolutely, though
it's been almost 10 years. But I'd been around for quite awhile by
the time mandrake showed up.

Post by Jose O Gonzalez
If ewl is indeed the "official" gui toolkit of enlightenment, and it
is the result of years of work... then how is it that none of the
major programs that are associated as being "e"... actually use it?
None do.

Also not true.

Michael

--
Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX) http://www.kainx.org/ <***@kainx.org>
n + 1, Inc., http://www.nplus1.net/ Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Or are you one of those folks who measures 'better' in terms of
total installed base? In which case, the cockroaches would like to
know when you'll be vacating their planet." -- Michael Paquette

Jose O Gonzalez

2005-10-12 21:34:10 UTC

Post by Michael Jennings
On Tuesday, 11 October 2005, at 23:33:18 (-0400),

You are mistaken. Was I a newcomer once? Yes, absolutely, though
it's been almost 10 years. But I'd been around for quite awhile by
the time mandrake showed up.

Perhaps so... I'd defer to raster and mandrake and you on that.
As I *dimly* recall, this was around the time of the unveiling of
e16 and eterm (my first experience with e was around e13 and I can't
recall if eterm was around then), and you certainly *seemed* to come
across, in that interview, as an excited newcomer -- to enlightenment.
But if you were instead an *excited old-timer*, then even better :)
If anyone can find a link to that interview somewhere, I'm sure
everyone would find it an interesting read :)

Post by Jose O Gonzalez
If ewl is indeed the "official" gui toolkit of enlightenment, and

Post by Jose O Gonzalez
is the result of years of work... then how is it that none of the
major programs that are associated as being "e"... actually use

it?

Post by Jose O Gonzalez
None do.

Also not true.

Ummm... that would very much depend on what one's list of *major*
programs associated as being "e"... consists of.
Perhaps you could give your list of such and pick out those that
use ewl.. so that a more "official" ratio can be ascertained.

Jose.

Jose O Gonzalez

2005-10-14 03:19:29 UTC

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 16:51:23 -0500 Nathan Ingersoll

Post by Nathan Ingersoll
Looking ahead, if Simon and Hisham are committed to working as

part of the

Post by Nathan Ingersoll
team, one excellent way to extend an olive branch would be to BSD

license

Post by Nathan Ingersoll
their theme. With the heavy GTK influence I can understand Simon's
reluctance to use a different license, but that only covers the

code, not

Post by Nathan Ingersoll
the theme. I did a quick port of their theme to EWL and it looked

pretty

Post by Nathan Ingersoll
damn good, but there's no chance of this work going into the EWL

theme

Post by Nathan Ingersoll
unless that license is changed. The way the two use edje is too

different at

Post by Nathan Ingersoll
this time to make themes that can be effectively shared between

the two, but

Post by Nathan Ingersoll
I don't see why some sharing can't occur at this level. ETK has

the benefit

Post by Nathan Ingersoll
of using EWL code without fear of license complications, it would

be nice if

Post by Nathan Ingersoll
EWL could do the same with the ETK theme.

i do think that is a major issue. you dont license something the
same as
another project just because the other project heavily influenced
its design
and ideas and structure. license applies to COPIES, not influences,
ideas,
inspiration. it has to be pretty much a direct copy (and then a
derivative from
there). i agree that etk, being lgpl, is not productinve in terms of
it being
able to share back. i know i dont plan on even thinking of "blessing
it" even
as official competition - if there can be such a thing (you get the
idea) as
long as it's lgpl. it basically stands out as a sore thumb in cvs
and i 100%
agree with everyone (except simon) on this issue. it should be
changed just so
it can be shared - you can share themes (well take the theme and
adapt for
ewl), or you can find useful code in etk and use it in ewl, and
vice-versa.

It's odd but one begins to get the feeling that a lot of this
negative reaction to etk has more to do with the licensing issue
than with actual code, or antecedent discussion about issues,
etc.

I personally fail to understand the free-and-good-BSD vs
political-and-bad-LGPL, stance of many here.

The reality is that *any* recourse to a license, even a copyright,
is taking a political stance - it is seeking protection through the legal
framework via some scheme.

To brand one such scheme as political but another as free of
politics is illusory.

I personally do not care much for any licensing schemes, and
every piece of code I've ever put up here, meager as it's been, I've
done so with no conditions whatever - I've not copyrighted anything,
I've not licensed anything, I've not asked for my name to be added
to any list of contributors, I've not asked for anything to be 'applied'
or for 'access to cvs'...

If others have the view that they would prefer their work to
be protected under the legal framework afforded by use of copyright
and/or a choice of license then that is something I very much respect.
But villifying one license scheme as 'political' and blessing
another as the one true 'apolitical' choice, is quite flawed.

If indeed there are those who care about "choice" above all,
then either place no constraints on your work, or allow for a choice
of licensing schemes - allow for the work to be licensed under a number
of licenses that are commonly used: BSD, GPL, XYZ, ...

Jose.

Nathan Ingersoll

2005-10-14 03:51:06 UTC

Post by Jose O Gonzalez
It's odd but one begins to get the feeling that a lot of this
negative reaction to etk has more to do with the licensing issue
than with actual code, or antecedent discussion about issues,
etc.

No, as you'll notice the licensing was only a small part of my message or
any of my prior messages on this matter.

Post by Jose O Gonzalez
If indeed there are those who care about "choice" above all,
then either place no constraints on your work, or allow for a choice
of licensing schemes - allow for the work to be licensed under a number
of licenses that are commonly used: BSD, GPL, XYZ, ...

As a project, it has been the concensus to use the BSD license, and I think
most of us are quite happy with that license. The issue isn't arguing over
LGPL vs BSD vs Some Random License, the problem is that the LGPL places
further restrictions on the license. So if a company decides to take EWL as
a basis for a product (and follows the attribution portions of the license),
they are free to do so right now. If the theme is LGPL, then they are
obliged to publish any changes to that theme, but may not realize it because
they downloaded a set of BSD licensed source code. So my reasoning on this
is to protect the interests of users and the original author. If the author
wants to use the LGPL, they are more than welcome to, and I don't want to
put them in a position of having their copyright unwittingly violated. The
same applies to the company that downloads the tarball, they should not
unwittingly be violating someone elses copyright if they make modifications
to the theme and distribute it.

Hope that clears up the issue. It's not about religion, just looking out for
everyone involved the best we can by avoiding incompatible licenses in a
single project.

Nathan

Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)

2005-10-14 03:54:56 UTC

Post by Jose O Gonzalez

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 16:51:23 -0500 Nathan Ingersoll

Post by Nathan Ingersoll
Looking ahead, if Simon and Hisham are committed to working as

part of the

Post by Nathan Ingersoll
team, one excellent way to extend an olive branch would be to BSD

license

Post by Nathan Ingersoll
their theme. With the heavy GTK influence I can understand Simon's
reluctance to use a different license, but that only covers the

code, not

Post by Nathan Ingersoll
the theme. I did a quick port of their theme to EWL and it looked

pretty

Post by Nathan Ingersoll
damn good, but there's no chance of this work going into the EWL

theme

Post by Nathan Ingersoll
unless that license is changed. The way the two use edje is too

different at

Post by Nathan Ingersoll
this time to make themes that can be effectively shared between

the two, but

Post by Nathan Ingersoll
I don't see why some sharing can't occur at this level. ETK has

the benefit

Post by Nathan Ingersoll
of using EWL code without fear of license complications, it would

be nice if

Post by Nathan Ingersoll
EWL could do the same with the ETK theme.

i do think that is a major issue. you dont license something the
same as
another project just because the other project heavily influenced
its design
and ideas and structure. license applies to COPIES, not influences,
ideas,
inspiration. it has to be pretty much a direct copy (and then a
derivative from
there). i agree that etk, being lgpl, is not productinve in terms of
it being
able to share back. i know i dont plan on even thinking of "blessing
it" even
as official competition - if there can be such a thing (you get the
idea) as
long as it's lgpl. it basically stands out as a sore thumb in cvs
and i 100%
agree with everyone (except simon) on this issue. it should be
changed just so
it can be shared - you can share themes (well take the theme and
adapt for
ewl), or you can find useful code in etk and use it in ewl, and
vice-versa.

It's odd but one begins to get the feeling that a lot of this
negative reaction to etk has more to do with the licensing issue
than with actual code, or antecedent discussion about issues,
etc.
I personally fail to understand the free-and-good-BSD vs
political-and-bad-LGPL, stance of many here.
The reality is that *any* recourse to a license, even a copyright,
is taking a political stance - it is seeking protection through the legal
framework via some scheme.
To brand one such scheme as political but another as free of
politics is illusory.
I personally do not care much for any licensing schemes, and
every piece of code I've ever put up here, meager as it's been, I've
done so with no conditions whatever - I've not copyrighted anything,
I've not licensed anything, I've not asked for my name to be added
to any list of contributors, I've not asked for anything to be 'applied'
or for 'access to cvs'...
If others have the view that they would prefer their work to
be protected under the legal framework afforded by use of copyright
and/or a choice of license then that is something I very much respect.
But villifying one license scheme as 'political' and blessing
another as the one true 'apolitical' choice, is quite flawed.
If indeed there are those who care about "choice" above all,
then either place no constraints on your work, or allow for a choice
of licensing schemes - allow for the work to be licensed under a number
of licenses that are commonly used: BSD, GPL, XYZ, ...

indeed it is their choice - 100% their choice. the reasonings for that choice
may be partly flawed (imho) but still their choice, BUT, because of the
license, it basically creates a 1 way doorway to that bit of code from the rest
of the code that is bsd licensed. if they know that and know the result will
basically be that no one works with the lgpl code either in contributing or
using it, then that's fine. but it is an issue if they wish for more than
that. :)

--
------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" --------------
The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) ***@rasterman.com
$BMg9%B?(B
Tokyo, Japan ($BEl5~(B $BF|K\(B)

Dan

2005-10-14 04:08:22 UTC

Post by Jose O Gonzalez
I personally fail to understand the free-and-good-BSD vs
political-and-bad-LGPL, stance of many here.
The reality is that *any* recourse to a license, even a copyright,
is taking a political stance - it is seeking protection through the legal
framework via some scheme.
To brand one such scheme as political but another as free of
politics is illusory.
I personally do not care much for any licensing schemes, and
every piece of code I've ever put up here, meager as it's been, I've
done so with no conditions whatever - I've not copyrighted anything,
I've not licensed anything, I've not asked for my name to be added
to any list of contributors, I've not asked for anything to be 'applied'
or for 'access to cvs'...
If others have the view that they would prefer their work to
be protected under the legal framework afforded by use of copyright
and/or a choice of license then that is something I very much respect.
But villifying one license scheme as 'political' and blessing
another as the one true 'apolitical' choice, is quite flawed.

It's Friday, and I'm not doing any more coding, so I'll weigh in on this
one :)

I was somewhat surprised when I realised that all Enlightenment stuff is
BSD.

The GPL license offers protection from predatory bodies - mainly
corporations - from taking your code and building on it without giving
those changes back. This seems like a good protection to me. The
consensus here seems to be that the BSD license gives them the most
freedom. That may be so, but it also offers no protection. Say for
example Microsoft or Apple or some other company come along and lift
your code, incorporating it in their next product, but adding a couple
of thousand hours of work to it. They of course don't give anything back
to the original authors. Wouldn't that worry people? Perhaps it would
never happen, but then again perhaps it would.

The 'freedom' arguement also ignores the fact that people can
dual-license their code. Why not negotiate a dual-license deal with
developers so that the code that is released to the public is GPL, but
the developers get offered a BSD-licensed copy?

Not being an Enlightenment developer at the moment ( Perl's the limit
... whatever happened to those Perl bindings, by the way ), I'm not
particularly bothered either way. I suppose I'm more curious. Of course
I respect the developers' choice to put whatever license they want on
their code, but I'd like to hear more from people who have the time to
respond why they see the BSD is better for them than the GPL -
especially when there are options like dual-licensing.

Dan

Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)

2005-10-14 04:59:20 UTC

Post by Dan
It's Friday, and I'm not doing any more coding, so I'll weigh in on this
one :)
I was somewhat surprised when I realised that all Enlightenment stuff is
BSD.
The GPL license offers protection from predatory bodies - mainly
corporations - from taking your code and building on it without giving
those changes back. This seems like a good protection to me. The
consensus here seems to be that the BSD license gives them the most
freedom. That may be so, but it also offers no protection. Say for
example Microsoft or Apple or some other company come along and lift
your code, incorporating it in their next product, but adding a couple
of thousand hours of work to it. They of course don't give anything back
to the original authors. Wouldn't that worry people? Perhaps it would
never happen, but then again perhaps it would.
The 'freedom' arguement also ignores the fact that people can
dual-license their code. Why not negotiate a dual-license deal with
developers so that the code that is released to the public is GPL, but
the developers get offered a BSD-licensed copy?
Not being an Enlightenment developer at the moment ( Perl's the limit
... whatever happened to those Perl bindings, by the way ), I'm not
particularly bothered either way. I suppose I'm more curious. Of course
I respect the developers' choice to put whatever license they want on
their code, but I'd like to hear more from people who have the time to
respond why they see the BSD is better for them than the GPL -
especially when there are options like dual-licensing.

OK. I guess this topic has done the rounds years ago and time is for a new one.
i emphasise that this is a PERSONAL OPINION base on experience, knowledge of
industry, technical facts, and all the licenses in question as well as others
out there.

fact: once source is available it IS able to be stolen. the chances of being
able to lift large chunks of useful code (eg take the image scaling routines or
the alpha blending routines) which is where a lot of the really tight code is,
is tirival. no one would ever know. reformat it a bit and that's it. there is
very little you can do. you will never know its stolen. its part of a much
larger codebase that suddenly is faster and nicer. we have not the resources to
litigate nor the time to scour the world looking for code and products that may
have possible used the code, disasembling their machnie code and hunting for
patterns that might possibly indicate our code (and a bit of reformatting - if
u loop one way or another) can even make this entirely pointless. theft is
trivial. not getting caught is easy as pie. accept it. even if they dont steal
the code - they can READ it and find the IDEAs and HOW to do it then
re-implement (alomsot identically). this doesnt violate even the gpl.

now in an attempt to have an olive branch stretched out to the world that
doesnt eat, sleep, breathe open source, we are making the barrier of entry
lower but not REQUIRING they ship source. they have other options. shipping
source is one way of meeting attribution clauses. others are to advertise or to
simply tell the develoeprs about the use of it. as a matter of FACT that if
they take code and dont give back - they bear the burdern of maintenance and
handling a fork. they will find it hard to incorproate new improvements and
eventually due to practical concernns will be driven back to the main tree and
realise it is better for them to give back what they do - if anything, and save
costs.

also note - a lot of things are LIBRARIES - they mostly will not GIVE BACK as
they build ontop of an api. their IP is in their app, not the lib. if they find
a bug - it helps them to submit a patch as that patch is then in upstream and
they dont have to maintain a fork. they can concentrate on their own product
and not worry about a slew of libraries etc. they are using the api of. they
have much fewer license concerns.

for the "open soruce world" the lbiraries are as open - if not more so, than
most, so nothing lost there.

and finally - i went with this license because frankly - i accepted long long
long ago that peolpe will take and NOT GIVE BACK. they do it with gpl - and
they do it in terms of download then ask for support - and support takes time.
time costs money. thus effectively they are taking and NOT giving back. they
will never write a single patch or a line of code. they will use it and ask for
support/help - EVEN IF the help is IN documentation - they dont read it. they
prefer to write an email to a developer and get a personalised response. dont
worry about licenes - this is the WORST problem with open source. by FAR.
companies are unlikely to just "steal". thats the view of those that hate
anything commercial. practicality is that the companies need some support -
will ask a bit, realise they use up your time and offer to PAY you for it and
PAY for patches, custom code ans support BECAUSE the license is muchmore open.
this helps you get some minimal money for your hard work - better than $0. note
- we dont get paid ANYTHING to produce E related code. it's produced out of
sheer love, sweat and tears. for all the students out there - this stuff is
done in time on evenings and weekends after exhausting days of work. year in
and year out. for peolpe with jobs personal time is precous and worth a lot to
them personally - so in working on e we invest much of ourselves in it. we are
a project with $0 funding. unlike many other projects of similar visibility, no
company has stepped forward to seriously partner with us to fund its
development (thus it moves very slowly). over the years there have been times
when me, or mandrake or mej have had paid work time to work on things. but
those have been minimal in the scheme/lifetime of E.

a BSD +attribution license is a way of extending an olive branch to companies
possibly willing to put down some hard cash. we all have principles and stick
to them like glue. i have had a few job offers before for large sums, BUT they
would have meant an IP agreement that would mean i no longer could work on E as
all my coding work would belong to the company. such offers i have turned down,
even after negotiations and big carrots. if you cant, trust us that we have the
interests of the project at heart and will maintain that, but in doing so we
like to "bend with the wind" a bit more than most to achieve the goal.

so... after a bit of length there - thats the reason i have used bsd licenses,
and almost all of the core develoeprs agree with such licenses as being the way
to go - we may simply think alike on the topic, but that is one thing that
definitely binds us all together.

--
------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" --------------
The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) ***@rasterman.com
$BMg9%B?(B
Tokyo, Japan ($BEl5~(B $BF|K\(B)

Daniel Kasak

2005-10-14 21:32:09 UTC

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
fact: once source is available it IS able to be stolen. the chances of being
able to lift large chunks of useful code (eg take the image scaling routines or
the alpha blending routines) which is where a lot of the really tight code is,
is tirival. no one would ever know. reformat it a bit and that's it. there is
very little you can do. you will never know its stolen. its part of a much
larger codebase that suddenly is faster and nicer. we have not the resources to
litigate nor the time to scour the world looking for code and products that may
have possible used the code, disasembling their machnie code and hunting for
patterns that might possibly indicate our code (and a bit of reformatting - if
u loop one way or another) can even make this entirely pointless. theft is
trivial. not getting caught is easy as pie. accept it. even if they dont steal
the code - they can READ it and find the IDEAs and HOW to do it then
re-implement (alomsot identically). this doesnt violate even the gpl.

I suppose a patent would be useful in this case :)
Joke.

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
now in an attempt to have an olive branch stretched out to the world that
doesnt eat, sleep, breathe open source, we are making the barrier of entry
lower but not REQUIRING they ship source. they have other options. shipping
source is one way of meeting attribution clauses. others are to advertise or to
simply tell the develoeprs about the use of it. as a matter of FACT that if
they take code and dont give back - they bear the burdern of maintenance and
handling a fork. they will find it hard to incorproate new improvements and
eventually due to practical concernns will be driven back to the main tree and
realise it is better for them to give back what they do - if anything, and save
costs.

This argument works when dealing with smaller organisations. I know that
the KHTML people are pissed off with Apple ( who use KHTML in Safari )
for not following the 'spirit' of the GPL and detailing their changes in
change logs, patches, etc, and actually participating in the community.
They simply make the source of their derived works available, and people
are left to wade through it and try to discover what's happened in the
meantime. So the point is that they're not particularly worried about
maintaining their own fork, and also that the GPL has at least given the
KHTML developers *something*.

I can certainly see smaller organisations being more willing to
co-operate though.

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
also note - a lot of things are LIBRARIES - they mostly will not GIVE BACK as
they build ontop of an api. their IP is in their app, not the lib. if they find
a bug - it helps them to submit a patch as that patch is then in upstream and
they dont have to maintain a fork. they can concentrate on their own product
and not worry about a slew of libraries etc. they are using the api of. they
have much fewer license concerns.
for the "open soruce world" the lbiraries are as open - if not more so, than
most, so nothing lost there.
and finally - i went with this license because frankly - i accepted long long
long ago that peolpe will take and NOT GIVE BACK. they do it with gpl - and
they do it in terms of download then ask for support - and support takes time.
time costs money. thus effectively they are taking and NOT giving back. they
will never write a single patch or a line of code. they will use it and ask for
support/help - EVEN IF the help is IN documentation - they dont read it. they
prefer to write an email to a developer and get a personalised response. dont
worry about licenes - this is the WORST problem with open source. by FAR.
companies are unlikely to just "steal". thats the view of those that hate
anything commercial. practicality is that the companies need some support -
will ask a bit, realise they use up your time and offer to PAY you for it and
PAY for patches, custom code ans support BECAUSE the license is muchmore open.
this helps you get some minimal money for your hard work - better than $0. note
- we dont get paid ANYTHING to produce E related code. it's produced out of
sheer love, sweat and tears. for all the students out there - this stuff is
done in time on evenings and weekends after exhausting days of work. year in
and year out. for peolpe with jobs personal time is precous and worth a lot to
them personally - so in working on e we invest much of ourselves in it. we are
a project with $0 funding. unlike many other projects of similar visibility, no
company has stepped forward to seriously partner with us to fund its
development (thus it moves very slowly). over the years there have been times
when me, or mandrake or mej have had paid work time to work on things. but
those have been minimal in the scheme/lifetime of E.
a BSD +attribution license is a way of extending an olive branch to companies
possibly willing to put down some hard cash. we all have principles and stick
to them like glue. i have had a few job offers before for large sums, BUT they
would have meant an IP agreement that would mean i no longer could work on E as
all my coding work would belong to the company. such offers i have turned down,
even after negotiations and big carrots. if you cant, trust us that we have the
interests of the project at heart and will maintain that, but in doing so we
like to "bend with the wind" a bit more than most to achieve the goal.
so... after a bit of length there - thats the reason i have used bsd licenses,
and almost all of the core develoeprs agree with such licenses as being the way
to go - we may simply think alike on the topic, but that is one thing that
definitely binds us all together.

Those are some damned good arguments. The purest in me doesn't like to
admit this, but I see your reasoning now.

Thanks for the response :) And thanks for all those blood, sweat and
tears too :)

Dan
--
BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
------------------------------------------------------If you are not the CanIt administrator and you think this
message is spam, please give the id 15359 and magic value
e143ace4815a to ***@entropy.homelinux.org to be marked as spam.

Teach CanIt if this mail (ID 15359) is spam:
Spam: http://entropy.homelinux.org/canit/b.php?c=s&i=15359&m=e143ace4815a
Not spam: http://entropy.homelinux.org/canit/b.php?c=n&i=15359&m=e143ace4815a
Forget vote: http://entropy.homelinux.org/canit/b.php?c=f&i=15359&m=e143ace4815a
------------------------------------------------------
END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS

David Seikel

2005-10-14 21:48:18 UTC

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 09:33:35 +1000 Daniel Kasak
<really long description snipped>

Post by Daniel Kasak
Those are some damned good arguments. The purest in me doesn't like to
admit this, but I see your reasoning now.

Hmm, guess that description is FAQ materiel then, but it's too long and
would dominate the FAQs. I'll make a first pass at this by dropping
rasters description into a separate page and linking that page to the
e.org FAQ. I'll probably need more write permission for that though, I
think I'm currently limited to just the FAQs Ma'am on e.org.

Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)

2005-10-15 00:26:14 UTC

Post by David Seikel
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 09:33:35 +1000 Daniel Kasak
<really long description snipped>

Post by Daniel Kasak
Those are some damned good arguments. The purest in me doesn't like to
admit this, but I see your reasoning now.

you might just want to summarise the important points :) i tend to ramble :)

--
------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" --------------
The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) ***@rasterman.com
$BMg9%B?(B
Tokyo, Japan ($BEl5~(B $BF|K\(B)

David Seikel

2005-10-15 00:30:11 UTC

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 11:09:42 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)

Post by David Seikel
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 09:33:35 +1000 Daniel Kasak
<really long description snipped>

Post by Daniel Kasak
Those are some damned good arguments. The purest in me doesn't
like to admit this, but I see your reasoning now.

Hmm, guess that description is FAQ materiel then, but it's too long
and would dominate the FAQs. I'll make a first pass at this by
dropping rasters description into a separate page and linking that
page to the e.org FAQ. I'll probably need more write permission
for that though, I think I'm currently limited to just the FAQs
Ma'am on e.org.

you might just want to summarise the important points :) i tend to ramble :)

That's for pass two. But at least I can now say "edited for brevity
with the authors permission".

Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)

2005-10-15 03:26:54 UTC

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)

Post by David Seikel
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 11:09:42 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)

Post by David Seikel
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 09:33:35 +1000 Daniel Kasak
<really long description snipped>

Post by Daniel Kasak
Those are some damned good arguments. The purest in me doesn't
like to admit this, but I see your reasoning now.

Hmm, guess that description is FAQ materiel then, but it's too long
and would dominate the FAQs. I'll make a first pass at this by
dropping rasters description into a separate page and linking that
page to the e.org FAQ. I'll probably need more write permission
for that though, I think I'm currently limited to just the FAQs
Ma'am on e.org.

you might just want to summarise the important points :) i tend to ramble :)

That's for pass two. But at least I can now say "edited for brevity
with the authors permission".

aye :)

--
------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" --------------
The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) ***@rasterman.com
$BMg9%B?(B
Tokyo, Japan ($BEl5~(B $BF|K\(B)

Nick

2005-10-14 22:03:06 UTC

This argument works when dealing with smaller organisations. I know that
the KHTML people are pissed off with Apple ( who use KHTML in Safari )
for not following the 'spirit' of the GPL and detailing their changes in
change logs, patches, etc, and actually participating in the community.
They simply make the source of their derived works available, and people
are left to wade through it and try to discover what's happened in the
meantime. So the point is that they're not particularly worried about
maintaining their own fork, and also that the GPL has at least given the
KHTML developers *something*.
I can certainly see smaller organisations being more willing to
co-operate though.

The abiword people have had some sort of extended issue with a company
who's proprietary word processor happens to parse Microsoft Word files
with amazingly similar behavior and bugs to abiword's code and abiword
symbols seem to be in that company's binaries for some reason.

I guess it may be harder to pull somethin like that for a set of gfx
related libraries like enlightenment's , but I'm a bit hungover so I
have no chance of imagining how people would go about doing this.

Nick

Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)

2005-10-15 00:26:16 UTC

Post by Nick

This argument works when dealing with smaller organisations. I know that
the KHTML people are pissed off with Apple ( who use KHTML in Safari )
for not following the 'spirit' of the GPL and detailing their changes in
change logs, patches, etc, and actually participating in the community.
They simply make the source of their derived works available, and people
are left to wade through it and try to discover what's happened in the
meantime. So the point is that they're not particularly worried about
maintaining their own fork, and also that the GPL has at least given the
KHTML developers *something*.
I can certainly see smaller organisations being more willing to
co-operate though.

The abiword people have had some sort of extended issue with a company
who's proprietary word processor happens to parse Microsoft Word files
with amazingly similar behavior and bugs to abiword's code and abiword
symbols seem to be in that company's binaries for some reason.
I guess it may be harder to pull somethin like that for a set of gfx
related libraries like enlightenment's , but I'm a bit hungover so I
have no chance of imagining how people would go about doing this.

even gpl isn't helping them there if they have no way to sick lawyers on them
and force them to disclose. of course this comapny si stupid - they left the
function calls named the same? HAH! *IF* i were to be in their shoes, stealing.
i woudl run sed over the code, renaming functions, symbols and such, rename
files reformat/re-indent them, move variable blocks around (harmlessly), rename
variables, re-order their declarations, definitely remove/retype commants, and
then go and re-do some loops etc. (replace while (1) with for(;;) etc.) -i ie
do a lot of harmless restructuring thatw should make the code quite dissimilar
at an even good glance. (rename any strings you can as well - etc.) sure it
might take a few days but less time than typing it up. for every stupid idiot
that steals code - imagine how many smarter ones theer are that get away with
it. :)

now why do they steal and not give back? the price is high! thats why. theft
occurs when the cost of doing it "legally" is so high the risk of getting
caught is worth the risk. like any activity at all actually. so i guess bsd +
advertising/attribution (which CAN be met by giving code out too alal lgpl) is
i guess a way to make the cost low - "you only have to give out the code in
question and the mods you made to THAT code" or "let everyone knwo you use us
so we know to track you and try and convince you the nice way to open up
more" :)

--
------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" --------------
The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) ***@rasterman.com
$BMg9%B?(B
Tokyo, Japan ($BEl5~(B $BF|K\(B)

Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)

2005-10-15 00:26:12 UTC

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
fact: once source is available it IS able to be stolen. the chances of being
able to lift large chunks of useful code (eg take the image scaling routines
or the alpha blending routines) which is where a lot of the really tight
code is, is tirival. no one would ever know. reformat it a bit and that's
it. there is very little you can do. you will never know its stolen. its
part of a much larger codebase that suddenly is faster and nicer. we have
not the resources to litigate nor the time to scour the world looking for
code and products that may have possible used the code, disasembling their
machnie code and hunting for patterns that might possibly indicate our code
(and a bit of reformatting - if u loop one way or another) can even make
this entirely pointless. theft is trivial. not getting caught is easy as
pie. accept it. even if they dont steal the code - they can READ it and find
the IDEAs and HOW to do it then re-implement (alomsot identically). this
doesnt violate even the gpl.

I suppose a patent would be useful in this case :)
Joke.

joke aside - thats exactly what patents are for. the fact that any smart
engineer can figure out how things work - with sourcecode you have given away
your most important asset - the idea, in gory details, in black and white.
without source you have hidden it and made it harder to find, but anyone used
to reverse engineering will nut it out sooner or later even without source.
thus patents. personally i think patents are wrong in principle for almost all
software. most especially because they are grossly abused and not filtered out
at application time.

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
now in an attempt to have an olive branch stretched out to the world that
doesnt eat, sleep, breathe open source, we are making the barrier of entry
lower but not REQUIRING they ship source. they have other options. shipping
source is one way of meeting attribution clauses. others are to advertise or
to simply tell the develoeprs about the use of it. as a matter of FACT that
if they take code and dont give back - they bear the burdern of maintenance
and handling a fork. they will find it hard to incorproate new improvements
and eventually due to practical concernns will be driven back to the main
tree and realise it is better for them to give back what they do - if
anything, and save costs.

true. something. mind you this is a fair unusual case and i dont think you will
find too many examples of that around.

Post by Daniel Kasak
I can certainly see smaller organisations being more willing to
co-operate though.

i guess thats the idea :) also rememebr an application is different to a
library. :)

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
also note - a lot of things are LIBRARIES - they mostly will not GIVE BACK as
they build ontop of an api. their IP is in their app, not the lib. if they
find a bug - it helps them to submit a patch as that patch is then in
upstream and they dont have to maintain a fork. they can concentrate on
their own product and not worry about a slew of libraries etc. they are
using the api of. they have much fewer license concerns.
for the "open soruce world" the lbiraries are as open - if not more so, than
most, so nothing lost there.
and finally - i went with this license because frankly - i accepted long long
long ago that peolpe will take and NOT GIVE BACK. they do it with gpl - and
they do it in terms of download then ask for support - and support takes
time. time costs money. thus effectively they are taking and NOT giving
back. they will never write a single patch or a line of code. they will use
it and ask for support/help - EVEN IF the help is IN documentation - they
dont read it. they prefer to write an email to a developer and get a
personalised response. dont worry about licenes - this is the WORST problem
with open source. by FAR. companies are unlikely to just "steal". thats the
view of those that hate anything commercial. practicality is that the
companies need some support - will ask a bit, realise they use up your time
and offer to PAY you for it and PAY for patches, custom code ans support
BECAUSE the license is muchmore open. this helps you get some minimal money
for your hard work - better than $0. note
- we dont get paid ANYTHING to produce E related code. it's produced out of
sheer love, sweat and tears. for all the students out there - this stuff is
done in time on evenings and weekends after exhausting days of work. year in
and year out. for peolpe with jobs personal time is precous and worth a lot
to them personally - so in working on e we invest much of ourselves in it.
we are a project with $0 funding. unlike many other projects of similar
visibility, no company has stepped forward to seriously partner with us to
fund its development (thus it moves very slowly). over the years there have
been times when me, or mandrake or mej have had paid work time to work on
things. but those have been minimal in the scheme/lifetime of E.
a BSD +attribution license is a way of extending an olive branch to companies
possibly willing to put down some hard cash. we all have principles and stick
to them like glue. i have had a few job offers before for large sums, BUT
they would have meant an IP agreement that would mean i no longer could work
on E as all my coding work would belong to the company. such offers i have
turned down, even after negotiations and big carrots. if you cant, trust us
that we have the interests of the project at heart and will maintain that,
but in doing so we like to "bend with the wind" a bit more than most to
achieve the goal.
so... after a bit of length there - thats the reason i have used bsd
licenses, and almost all of the core develoeprs agree with such licenses as
being the way to go - we may simply think alike on the topic, but that is
one thing that definitely binds us all together.

Those are some damned good arguments. The purest in me doesn't like to
admit this, but I see your reasoning now.
Thanks for the response :) And thanks for all those blood, sweat and
tears too :)
Dan
--
BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
------------------------------------------------------If you are not the
CanIt administrator and you think this message is spam, please give the id
marked as spam.
http://entropy.homelinux.org/canit/b.php?c=s&i=15359&m=e143ace4815a Not
spam: http://entropy.homelinux.org/canit/b.php?c=n&i=15359&m=e143ace4815a
http://entropy.homelinux.org/canit/b.php?c=f&i=15359&m=e143ace4815a
------------------------------------------------------
END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS

--
------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" --------------
The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) ***@rasterman.com
$BMg9%B?(B
Tokyo, Japan ($BEl5~(B $BF|K\(B)

Jason Tackaberry

2005-10-15 01:53:10 UTC

Post by Daniel Kasak
the KHTML people are pissed off with Apple ( who use KHTML in Safari )
for not following the 'spirit' of the GPL and detailing their changes in
change logs, patches, etc, and actually participating in the community.

If I remember the KHTML/Safari debacle properly, the KHTML developers
weren't so much pissed off with Apple as they were at those in the
community who criticized the KHTML project for not merging the "patches"
that Apple produced.

I think the KHTML hackers realize they can't justifiably be angry at
Apple as long as Apple follows the letter of the license. Apple wasn't
releasing code in a form usable to KHTML (at the time, at least -- I
believe some things may have changed), but they were still fulfilling
their obligation to release it. The KHTML hackers were frustrated at
_others_ who suggested they were negligent (or lazy or incompetent or
whatever) for not merging that code.

Cheers,
Jason.

Michael Jennings

2005-10-14 06:15:35 UTC

On Friday, 14 October 2005, at 01:17:02 (-0400),

Post by Jose O Gonzalez
The reality is that *any* recourse to a license, even a copyright,
is taking a political stance - it is seeking protection through the
legal framework via some scheme.
To brand one such scheme as political but another as free of
politics is illusory.

The point is not whether or not there are politics. The point is that
the BSD license is more free and less restrictive.

Post by Jose O Gonzalez
I personally do not care much for any licensing schemes, and every
piece of code I've ever put up here, meager as it's been, I've done
so with no conditions whatever - I've not copyrighted anything, I've
not licensed anything, I've not asked for my name to be added to any
list of contributors, I've not asked for anything to be 'applied' or
for 'access to cvs'...

Anything you write is copyrighted. Whether or not you implicitly
assign copyright to the original author(s) when you submit a patch or
block of code is a matter of much debate.

Post by Jose O Gonzalez
But villifying one license scheme as 'political' and blessing
another as the one true 'apolitical' choice, is quite flawed.

The GPL is designed around the political views of GNU and RMS. The
BSD license basically says, "We don't care what you do with this as
long as you give us credit." The only thing that's more free than
that is "public domain." So as licenses go, BSD is pretty much as
apolitical as you can get.

Post by Jose O Gonzalez
If indeed there are those who care about "choice" above all, then
either place no constraints on your work, or allow for a choice of
licensing schemes - allow for the work to be licensed under a number
of licenses that are commonly used: BSD, GPL, XYZ, ...

It doesn't work that way. Licenses grant specific rights and restrict
others. GPL'd code cannot be used in BSD-licensed projects.

On Friday, 14 October 2005, at 16:07:33 (+1000),

Post by Jose O Gonzalez
I was somewhat surprised when I realised that all Enlightenment
stuff is BSD.
The GPL license offers protection from predatory bodies - mainly
corporations - from taking your code and building on it without
giving those changes back. This seems like a good protection to
me. The consensus here seems to be that the BSD license gives them
the most freedom. That may be so, but it also offers no
protection. Say for example Microsoft or Apple or some other company
come along and lift your code, incorporating it in their next
product, but adding a couple of thousand hours of work to it. They
of course don't give anything back to the original authors. Wouldn't
that worry people?

Nope. If it's going to happen, it's going to happen regardless. If
someone like Microsoft or AOL wanted to steal our code, they could do
it easily, even if we used the GPL. And the chances of our being able
to prove they did so are almost non-existent.

Post by Jose O Gonzalez
The 'freedom' arguement also ignores the fact that people can
dual-license their code. Why not negotiate a dual-license deal with
developers so that the code that is released to the public is GPL,
but the developers get offered a BSD-licensed copy?

In the end, the users are the ones who wind up with it. And since
it's GPL'd for them, the conflict remains.

BSD gives developers the right to use our code in any project under
any license, including the GPL. The only thing they can't do is claim
they wrote it.

On Friday, 14 October 2005, at 15:58:22 (+0900),

Post by Jose O Gonzalez
so... after a bit of length there - thats the reason i have used bsd
licenses, and almost all of the core develoeprs agree with such
licenses as being the way to go - we may simply think alike on the
topic, but that is one thing that definitely binds us all together.

Every now and again someone comes along and wants to GPL something.
And sooner or later these projects tend to move out into their own
separate SF projects and CVS trees because their code is useless to
us.

Michael

Jose O Gonzalez

2005-10-14 07:10:20 UTC

Post by Michael Jennings
On Friday, 14 October 2005, at 12:19:14 (+0900),

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
so does everyone seem agreed we should try re-assign priorities to
the mailing lists to be more "on topic" (make some announcements

and

Post by Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
make an effort to redirect mails to users or web lists etc.) and
then maybe free up some mail "bandwidth" for more discussion?

Definitely.
Michael

Open email discussion on a large number of areas of 'e' would be good :)

Perhaps also something that other projects seem to do.. namely, pick one
day a week (and a time period) for an 'irc meeting', where the more
outstanding
issues of the week are further gone over, etc.

Jose.

Jose O Gonzalez

2005-10-14 08:13:46 UTC

Post by Dan
It's Friday, and I'm not doing any more coding, so I'll weigh in

on this

Post by Dan
one :)
I was somewhat surprised when I realised that all Enlightenment

stuff is

Post by Dan
BSD.
The GPL license offers protection from predatory bodies - mainly
corporations - from taking your code and building on it without

giving

Post by Dan
those changes back. This seems like a good protection to me. The
consensus here seems to be that the BSD license gives them the

most

Post by Dan
freedom. That may be so, but it also offers no protection. Say for
example Microsoft or Apple or some other company come along and

lift

Post by Dan
your code, incorporating it in their next product, but adding a

couple

Post by Dan
of thousand hours of work to it. They of course don't give

anything back

Post by Dan
to the original authors. Wouldn't that worry people? Perhaps it

would

Post by Dan
never happen, but then again perhaps it would.
The 'freedom' arguement also ignores the fact that people can
dual-license their code. Why not negotiate a dual-license deal

with

Post by Dan
developers so that the code that is released to the public is GPL,

but

Post by Dan
the developers get offered a BSD-licensed copy?
Not being an Enlightenment developer at the moment ( Perl's the

limit

Post by Dan
... whatever happened to those Perl bindings, by the way ), I'm

not

Post by Dan
particularly bothered either way. I suppose I'm more curious. Of

course

Post by Dan
I respect the developers' choice to put whatever license they want

Post by Dan
their code, but I'd like to hear more from people who have the

time to

Post by Dan
respond why they see the BSD is better for them than the GPL -
especially when there are options like dual-licensing.

OK. I guess this topic has done the rounds years ago and time is for
a new one.
i emphasise that this is a PERSONAL OPINION base on experience,
knowledge of
industry, technical facts, and all the licenses in question as well
as others
out there.
fact: once source is available it IS able to be stolen. the chances
of being
able to lift large chunks of useful code (eg take the image scaling
routines or
the alpha blending routines) which is where a lot of the really
tight code is,
is tirival. no one would ever know. reformat it a bit and that's it.
there is
very little you can do. you will never know its stolen. its part of
a much
larger codebase that suddenly is faster and nicer. we have not the
resources to
litigate nor the time to scour the world looking for code and
products that may
have possible used the code, disasembling their machnie code and
hunting for
patterns that might possibly indicate our code (and a bit of
reformatting - if
u loop one way or another) can even make this entirely pointless.
theft is
trivial. not getting caught is easy as pie. accept it. even if they
dont steal
the code - they can READ it and find the IDEAs and HOW to do it then
re-implement (alomsot identically). this doesnt violate even the
gpl.
now in an attempt to have an olive branch stretched out to the world
that
doesnt eat, sleep, breathe open source, we are making the barrier of
entry
lower but not REQUIRING they ship source. they have other options.
shipping
source is one way of meeting attribution clauses. others are to
advertise or to
simply tell the develoeprs about the use of it. as a matter of FACT
that if
they take code and dont give back - they bear the burdern of
maintenance and
handling a fork. they will find it hard to incorproate new
improvements and
eventually due to practical concernns will be driven back to the
main tree and
realise it is better for them to give back what they do - if
anything, and save
costs.
also note - a lot of things are LIBRARIES - they mostly will not
GIVE BACK as
they build ontop of an api. their IP is in their app, not the lib.
if they find
a bug - it helps them to submit a patch as that patch is then in
upstream and
they dont have to maintain a fork. they can concentrate on their own
product
and not worry about a slew of libraries etc. they are using the api
of. they
have much fewer license concerns.
for the "open soruce world" the lbiraries are as open - if not more
so, than
most, so nothing lost there.
and finally - i went with this license because frankly - i accepted
long long
long ago that peolpe will take and NOT GIVE BACK. they do it with
gpl - and
they do it in terms of download then ask for support - and support
takes time.
time costs money. thus effectively they are taking and NOT giving
back. they
will never write a single patch or a line of code. they will use it
and ask for
support/help - EVEN IF the help is IN documentation - they dont read
it. they
prefer to write an email to a developer and get a personalised
response. dont
worry about licenes - this is the WORST problem with open source. by
FAR.
companies are unlikely to just "steal". thats the view of those that
hate
anything commercial. practicality is that the companies need some
support -
will ask a bit, realise they use up your time and offer to PAY you
for it and
PAY for patches, custom code ans support BECAUSE the license is
muchmore open.
this helps you get some minimal money for your hard work - better
than $0. note
- we dont get paid ANYTHING to produce E related code. it's produced
out of
sheer love, sweat and tears. for all the students out there - this
stuff is
done in time on evenings and weekends after exhausting days of work.
year in
and year out. for peolpe with jobs personal time is precous and
worth a lot to
them personally - so in working on e we invest much of ourselves in
it. we are
a project with $0 funding. unlike many other projects of similar
visibility, no
company has stepped forward to seriously partner with us to fund its
development (thus it moves very slowly). over the years there have
been times
when me, or mandrake or mej have had paid work time to work on
things. but
those have been minimal in the scheme/lifetime of E.
a BSD +attribution license is a way of extending an olive branch to
companies
possibly willing to put down some hard cash. we all have principles
and stick
to them like glue. i have had a few job offers before for large
sums, BUT they
would have meant an IP agreement that would mean i no longer could
work on E as
all my coding work would belong to the company. such offers i have
turned down,
even after negotiations and big carrots. if you cant, trust us that
we have the
interests of the project at heart and will maintain that, but in
doing so we
like to "bend with the wind" a bit more than most to achieve the
goal.
so... after a bit of length there - thats the reason i have used bsd
licenses,
and almost all of the core develoeprs agree with such licenses as
being the way
to go - we may simply think alike on the topic, but that is one
thing that
definitely binds us all together.

All of this appears reasonable, and yet there are arguments that
are also reasonable to the effect that license XYZ is instead a 'better'
way to go.
Rather than agonize over attempting to dissect the fine points of
license A over license B, one can offer the option of both (if possible)
as has been suggested by the poster.
In particular, if BSD and LGPL are the A and B here, then why not
have all "e" code covered under a choice of either - ie. a company or
a distribution can use BSD or LGPL as they wish. Where is there a loss to
e, or its developers, in this added extra flexibility??

Furthermore, in an attempt to better understand the possible benefits
of A over B, or A and/or B, offerings.. one might want to look around and
see which projects that use any such, and how they've fared.
If one does this, one would tend to incline to the conclusion that
those projects that use LGPL are more numerous, and have been somewhat
more
successful in being "adopted" than those that use BSD.

For LGPL/GPL one has: the Linux kernel, all the basic GNU libs/programs,
GNOME/Gtk, KDE/Qt, and a host of others...

For BSD one has: the various BSD kernels, the X.org implementation
of X11, enlightenment, and some others...?

Post by Ibukun Olumuyiwa
On Friday, 14 October 2005, at 01:17:02 (-0400),

Post by Dan
I personally do not care much for any licensing schemes, and every
piece of code I've ever put up here, meager as it's been, I've done
so with no conditions whatever ......

Anything you write is copyrighted. Whether or not you implicitly
assign copyright to the original author(s) when you submit a patch
or
block of code is a matter of much debate.

Not so. This very much depends on particular countries and their
laws. In the USA, while one is indeed the 'author' of whatever one
writes,
one needs to expressely claim copyright ownership, or one may not have
the legal right to such after it is posted somewhere.

Post by Dan
But villifying one license scheme as 'political' and blessing
another as the one true 'apolitical' choice, is quite flawed.

Ummm... As I've stated, I have little care, personally, for any
licensing scheme.. But looking over this whole thread, I'd put this
forward:

If 'apolitical-ness' is what e is after, then public
domain would be best.

If thwarting the political views of RMS, then anything *but*
LGPL/GPL would be best.

If instead e seeks support/acceptance/funding etc. from companies
or whatnot, then if we look at the results mentioned above... it would
seem that furthering the political views of GNU and RMS has served
a very large number of projects *very* well.

Perhaps e needs to rexamine, in a realistic "non-religious" manner,
what its priorities are.. and make a serious study of what has worked
best for projects, and what has not.

Jose.

Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)

2005-10-14 11:31:22 UTC

Post by Jose O Gonzalez

Post by Dan
It's Friday, and I'm not doing any more coding, so I'll weigh in

on this

Post by Dan
one :)
I was somewhat surprised when I realised that all Enlightenment

stuff is

Post by Dan
BSD.
The GPL license offers protection from predatory bodies - mainly
corporations - from taking your code and building on it without

giving

Post by Dan
those changes back. This seems like a good protection to me. The
consensus here seems to be that the BSD license gives them the

most

Post by Dan
freedom. That may be so, but it also offers no protection. Say for
example Microsoft or Apple or some other company come along and

lift

Post by Dan
your code, incorporating it in their next product, but adding a

couple

Post by Dan
of thousand hours of work to it. They of course don't give

anything back

Post by Dan
to the original authors. Wouldn't that worry people? Perhaps it

would

Post by Dan
never happen, but then again perhaps it would.
The 'freedom' arguement also ignores the fact that people can
dual-license their code. Why not negotiate a dual-license deal

with

Post by Dan
developers so that the code that is released to the public is GPL,

but

Post by Dan
the developers get offered a BSD-licensed copy?
Not being an Enlightenment developer at the moment ( Perl's the

limit

Post by Dan
... whatever happened to those Perl bindings, by the way ), I'm

not

Post by Dan
particularly bothered either way. I suppose I'm more curious. Of

course

Post by Dan
I respect the developers' choice to put whatever license they want

Post by Dan
their code, but I'd like to hear more from people who have the

time to

Post by Dan
respond why they see the BSD is better for them than the GPL -
especially when there are options like dual-licensing.

OK. I guess this topic has done the rounds years ago and time is for
a new one.
i emphasise that this is a PERSONAL OPINION base on experience,
knowledge of
industry, technical facts, and all the licenses in question as well
as others
out there.
fact: once source is available it IS able to be stolen. the chances
of being
able to lift large chunks of useful code (eg take the image scaling
routines or
the alpha blending routines) which is where a lot of the really
tight code is,
is tirival. no one would ever know. reformat it a bit and that's it.
there is
very little you can do. you will never know its stolen. its part of
a much
larger codebase that suddenly is faster and nicer. we have not the
resources to
litigate nor the time to scour the world looking for code and
products that may
have possible used the code, disasembling their machnie code and
hunting for
patterns that might possibly indicate our code (and a bit of
reformatting - if
u loop one way or another) can even make this entirely pointless.
theft is
trivial. not getting caught is easy as pie. accept it. even if they
dont steal
the code - they can READ it and find the IDEAs and HOW to do it then
re-implement (alomsot identically). this doesnt violate even the
gpl.
now in an attempt to have an olive branch stretched out to the world
that
doesnt eat, sleep, breathe open source, we are making the barrier of
entry
lower but not REQUIRING they ship source. they have other options.
shipping
source is one way of meeting attribution clauses. others are to
advertise or to
simply tell the develoeprs about the use of it. as a matter of FACT
that if
they take code and dont give back - they bear the burdern of
maintenance and
handling a fork. they will find it hard to incorproate new
improvements and
eventually due to practical concernns will be driven back to the
main tree and
realise it is better for them to give back what they do - if
anything, and save
costs.
also note - a lot of things are LIBRARIES - they mostly will not
GIVE BACK as
they build ontop of an api. their IP is in their app, not the lib.
if they find
a bug - it helps them to submit a patch as that patch is then in
upstream and
they dont have to maintain a fork. they can concentrate on their own
product
and not worry about a slew of libraries etc. they are using the api
of. they
have much fewer license concerns.
for the "open soruce world" the lbiraries are as open - if not more
so, than
most, so nothing lost there.
and finally - i went with this license because frankly - i accepted
long long
long ago that peolpe will take and NOT GIVE BACK. they do it with
gpl - and
they do it in terms of download then ask for support - and support
takes time.
time costs money. thus effectively they are taking and NOT giving
back. they
will never write a single patch or a line of code. they will use it
and ask for
support/help - EVEN IF the help is IN documentation - they dont read
it. they
prefer to write an email to a developer and get a personalised
response. dont
worry about licenes - this is the WORST problem with open source. by
FAR.
companies are unlikely to just "steal". thats the view of those that
hate
anything commercial. practicality is that the companies need some
support -
will ask a bit, realise they use up your time and offer to PAY you
for it and
PAY for patches, custom code ans support BECAUSE the license is
muchmore open.
this helps you get some minimal money for your hard work - better
than $0. note
- we dont get paid ANYTHING to produce E related code. it's produced
out of
sheer love, sweat and tears. for all the students out there - this
stuff is
done in time on evenings and weekends after exhausting days of work.
year in
and year out. for peolpe with jobs personal time is precous and
worth a lot to
them personally - so in working on e we invest much of ourselves in
it. we are
a project with $0 funding. unlike many other projects of similar
visibility, no
company has stepped forward to seriously partner with us to fund its
development (thus it moves very slowly). over the years there have
been times
when me, or mandrake or mej have had paid work time to work on
things. but
those have been minimal in the scheme/lifetime of E.
a BSD +attribution license is a way of extending an olive branch to
companies
possibly willing to put down some hard cash. we all have principles
and stick
to them like glue. i have had a few job offers before for large
sums, BUT they
would have meant an IP agreement that would mean i no longer could
work on E as
all my coding work would belong to the company. such offers i have
turned down,
even after negotiations and big carrots. if you cant, trust us that
we have the
interests of the project at heart and will maintain that, but in
doing so we
like to "bend with the wind" a bit more than most to achieve the
goal.
so... after a bit of length there - thats the reason i have used bsd
licenses,
and almost all of the core develoeprs agree with such licenses as
being the way
to go - we may simply think alike on the topic, but that is one
thing that
definitely binds us all together.

we won't - we are suggesting being consistent with the same licensing as
everything else - not to argue. i just gave the reasoning behind it. it's been
thsi way for many years and it's been hashed over years ago. :)

Post by Jose O Gonzalez
In particular, if BSD and LGPL are the A and B here, then why not
have all "e" code covered under a choice of either - ie. a company or
a distribution can use BSD or LGPL as they wish. Where is there a loss to
e, or its developers, in this added extra flexibility??

too late. its already licensed. to re-license you need all copyright holders
(everyone who is listedin AUTHORS) to agree to aq license change. dual
licensing is the same. :)

Post by Jose O Gonzalez
Furthermore, in an attempt to better understand the possible benefits
of A over B, or A and/or B, offerings.. one might want to look around and
see which projects that use any such, and how they've fared.
If one does this, one would tend to incline to the conclusion that
those projects that use LGPL are more numerous, and have been somewhat
more
successful in being "adopted" than those that use BSD.
For LGPL/GPL one has: the Linux kernel, all the basic GNU
libs/programs, GNOME/Gtk, KDE/Qt, and a host of others...
For BSD one has: the various BSD kernels, the X.org implementation
of X11, enlightenment, and some others...?

Post by Ibukun Olumuyiwa
On Friday, 14 October 2005, at 01:17:02 (-0400),

Post by Dan
I personally do not care much for any licensing schemes, and every
piece of code I've ever put up here, meager as it's been, I've done
so with no conditions whatever ......

Anything you write is copyrighted. Whether or not you implicitly
assign copyright to the original author(s) when you submit a patch
or
block of code is a matter of much debate.

Post by Dan
But villifying one license scheme as 'political' and blessing
another as the one true 'apolitical' choice, is quite flawed.

Ummm... As I've stated, I have little care, personally, for any
licensing scheme.. But looking over this whole thread, I'd put this
If 'apolitical-ness' is what e is after, then public
domain would be best.
If thwarting the political views of RMS, then anything *but*
LGPL/GPL would be best.
If instead e seeks support/acceptance/funding etc. from companies
or whatnot, then if we look at the results mentioned above... it would
seem that furthering the political views of GNU and RMS has served
a very large number of projects *very* well.
Perhaps e needs to rexamine, in a realistic "non-religious" manner,
what its priorities are.. and make a serious study of what has worked
best for projects, and what has not.
Jose.
-------------------------------------------------------
Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions,
and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

--
------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" --------------
The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) ***@rasterman.com
$BMg9%B?(B
Tokyo, Japan ($BEl5~(B $BF|K\(B)

Michael Jennings

2005-10-14 12:53:19 UTC

On Friday, 14 October 2005, at 06:10:31 (-0400),

Post by Jose O Gonzalez
All of this appears reasonable, and yet there are arguments that
are also reasonable to the effect that license XYZ is instead a 'better'
way to go.
Rather than agonize over attempting to dissect the fine points of
license A over license B, one can offer the option of both (if possible)
as has been suggested by the poster.
In particular, if BSD and LGPL are the A and B here, then why not
have all "e" code covered under a choice of either - ie. a company or
a distribution can use BSD or LGPL as they wish. Where is there a loss to
e, or its developers, in this added extra flexibility??

As raster said, this is an explanation, not a discussion. The
decision was made (and hashed out at length) a very long time ago, and
it isn't under review. Been there, done that, moved on. :-)

Michael

--
Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX) http://www.kainx.org/ <***@kainx.org>
n + 1, Inc., http://www.nplus1.net/ Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a
weakness; that is life." -- Captain Picard, "Peak Performance"

Didier Casse

2005-10-14 14:58:29 UTC

Post by Michael Jennings
As raster said, this is an explanation, not a discussion. The
decision was made (and hashed out at length) a very long time ago, and
it isn't under review. Been there, done that, moved on. :-)
Michael

I would suggest to add the explanation to some FAQ in the
enlightenment.org website (or some other E related FAQs).
.
I mean this question not only pops out in the newcomers mind but the
old timers also sometimes forget at some point why BSD was chosen over
the rest! :)

I guess nobody would violently object to the suggestion. It would also
avoid repeating things hundreds of times.

Onefang? Cuddletech and other website guys?

--
With kind regards,
Didier.

------------
Yum/apt repository for DR17/EFL: http://sps.nus.edu.sg/~didierbe

Didier F.B Casse
PhD candidate, Singapore Synchrotron Light Source (SSLS)
National University of Singapore.

David Seikel

2005-10-14 20:53:21 UTC