|
|
|
| allegro interface |
|
gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
 |
License clutter. With BSD, you have to bother the end user with the license as well. -- |
|
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
 |
Quote: Do you mean exclusive rights to contributed code from anyone? Say I want to write something for A5 (don't know what it would be, but regardless of that), does that mean I'm giving up the rights to my own code then? It just sounds a little funny is all. Nah. Just code you contribute directly to allegro, you give allegro the rights to do with THAT code whatever it deems fit. You can do what ever you want with another copy of the code, since its yours originally. Its just a way to make the dev team's life a lot easier in the future. -- |
|
Elias
Member #358
May 2000
|
Quote: Now, zlib is closer in spirit to giftware and (probably) has better wording than either BSD or MIT, but the only practical difference I can see is attribution. Given all the considerations: - wanting a standard licence I'm wondering if the difference between zlib and BSD/MIT is really great enough to justify it. And looking from the other side, if the non-standardness of zlib really is great enough (OSI did not put it into the "redundant" or "superseded" categories but into "other/misc") to justify an extra clause (assuming we don't want attribution). Myself, I don't care. ZLIB seems more than standard enough compared to giftware. And before this thread, I didn't even know of the attribution difference between ZLIB and MIT/BSD - and likely most users of A5 won't know about it either, no matter which one we choose -- |
|
Peter Wang
Member #23
April 2000
|
I had another think about it overnight. My conclusion: both zlib/libpng are ubiquitous. Wherever they go, their licence goes, and hence will need to be accounted for. We can piggyback off that. So I'd be happy with the zlib licence as well.
|
|
Bob
Free Market Evangelist
September 2000
 |
I will allow it. -- |
|
Evert
Member #794
November 2000
 |
Quote: So I'd be happy with the zlib licence as well.
Soundly reasoned. |
|
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
My spell checker says its license. So lets go with that -- |
|
Peter Wang
Member #23
April 2000
|
Call it LICENSE.txt.
|
|
Specter Phoenix
Member #1,425
July 2001
 |
I've looked into the license considerations and I feel that zlib is perfect. The others I felt were to vague in some aspects but I don't know if the vague areas affect allegro. This is why I back the zlib license as the new A5 license.
|
|
Evert
Member #794
November 2000
|
Quote: My spell checker says its license. My dictionary says "licence [GB, AE: license]". Quote: Call it LICENSE.txt. Done and committed. |
|
Thomas Harte
Member #33
April 2000
 |
Sorry to be a yawnsome person, but in British English license is the verb and licence is the noun (i.e. the Allegro developers license Allegro, giving end-users a licence). So I think licence.txt is correct. It's like practise and practice. Or, I guess, effect and affect — except that at least I pronounce them differently. EDIT: See the TV Licensing page for an example. They talk of licensing, as in the title, but of TV Licences. [My site] [Tetrominoes] |
|
Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
 |
Software license is the standard. Wikipedia confirms it: Quote:
Software license http://www.gzip.org/zlib/zlib_license.html End of discussion. |
|
Thomas Harte
Member #33
April 2000
|
Oh, well no doubt it's an American English versus British English thing. Allegro, of course, has always followed the American conventions (set_color, etc) despite originating in Britain — so I guess you're right: end of discussion. [My site] [Tetrominoes] |
|
StevenVI
Member #562
July 2000
 |
Tomas Harte said: Allegro, of course, has always followed the American conventions Not sure if you meant to be ironic because it is actually quite inconsistent: textprintf_centre, textout_centre. Even though my contribution was small, zlib sounds like a nice idea to me, too. __________________________________________________ |
|
Milan Mimica
Member #3,877
September 2003
 |
Quote: Not sure if you meant to be ironic because it is actually quite inconsistent: textprintf_centre, textout_centre.
Contributions from non-native English speakers has left the trace.
-- |
|
Thomas Harte
Member #33
April 2000
|
Nope, I was just being ignorant. Though I still think it would be an error to claim that American English is not the de facto standard for computer 'programs', even in British English areas. What with India and all, spelling in British English most of the time but American English for programming is probably even more common than doing both with American English. [My site] [Tetrominoes] |
|
Karadoc ~~
Member #2,749
September 2002
 |
I guess I've missed the boat on this, but I thought I might as well cast my 2c anyway. I like zlib, partially because it is very relaxed, but mainly because it doesn't have any of that CAPSLOCKED-TRYING-TO-LOOK-IMPORTANT-BUT-REALLY-JUST-DIFFICULT-TO-READ rubbish in it. I hate that junk. ----------- |
|
|
|
