okay in between all the disagreements and arguments i just wanted to say i think this is a great GTK engine and hope that further work will be continued.
As far as I understand your point (I am not very good in english so if I am wrong please feel free to correct me) you will mind if after the recent changes you are making to the engine and all the widgets got round edges, I take the code and see what is modified and what is not and then rewrite some stuff in it to allow square edges for the buttons and other widgets and then realease it with another name or just another version. Is this the case?
Of course inside there will be some credits but who actually read that?
You do not have legal not moral reason to stop me from doing this every time you release a newer version.
Because you have decided to suspend the square edges by asking the users and because most of them wanted this. Well there is still part of this user base that do not want it and they will benefit this "fork". It will not be really a fork, just patch.
Last but not in importance me and my colegues greatly respect your job as none of us has the time and will to write such software and as far as I know you are spending lot of time on this and we are using your engine fulltime. But still we have the right to change it in order for it to suit better our needs, and this is exactly the point of the open source. And I am really sorry you feel that way. What you maybe do not understand is that your job is important and good - so if someone is using it it is GOOD!
As of Quinn's fork of the compiz - PLEASE - they kept sending and sending the patches to david but he was not willing to include it in the compiz tree. He wanted the compiz to go one way, quinn has her mind other way. As of this moment (and not from today or yesterday but for a long time now) the quinn's work is better as she's working mostly on this and david has other things to do. The reason for the fork was exaclty this - not beause someone was using someone else's work but because they had different view on how the project will be structured and what is important.
And this is exactly what is going to happen with murrine if you keep including new stuff and in the same exclude already proved to be good stuff.
Peter
Since people don't understand my thoughts I'm replying here...
I'M WITH GPL NOT AGAINST.
AND ALL MY WORKS WILL BE ALWAYS ALL GPL!
You haven't understood my thought.
I'm referring that it is absolutely BAD for a developer know that someone use your work as a repository
THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF SIJP!!! IT'S A FREIND OF MINE IN CHAT.
I agree with forks, since murrine IS A FORK. But i need to tell people to RESPECT other people works.
I'm not against GPL, I dream OPENSOURCE all the day, I have no Closed OSs in my Pcs.
These words are for another thing, are to tell people that they have to RESPECT the work of other people...
Take an example: Microsoft gets murrine code and rename it to FRESCO and release in Vista... and if i will make modification Microsoft will redownload and rechange the name to FRESCO...
IS IT FUN??? Absolutely not.
THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF SIJP!!!
I hope you will understand these words since these words are not AGAINST opensource but they try to keep OPENSOURCE the BEST CHOICE for any developer, since we code and we need to be respect for our works.
Temper, temper, now, now... There's no need to shout, really. Actually, I have understood and interpreted your words perfectly, however you persist in failing to comprehend - you have already agreed, by using GPL, to reuse of your code - even in the case of it being utilised as mere repo for someone else's work... Your mention of M$ is pure doublespeak argument, since they would not be legally allowed to link your GPLed code with their proprietary libs (there's some sort of trap here, since libgtk+ is LGPL actually). You have every right to be mad in case any potential abuse should take place, but sadly (or luckily) that is not what happened...
Yes this is not what happened and probably this engine will be merged in murrine or few features will be merged (not important)
I was saying that for a coder is terribly frustrating knowing that someone use your code as a repository (this is not the case of dyndyn).
I agree with forks but I dislike a project that lives on the shoulders of someone else... I't unfair... this was the case of Quinnstorm... fortunately now they got the fork...
Thrust me that thing can me irritating when you spend full days to work and someone steal your work just because it is GPL... GPL needs something about forks more I think.
fork? what's with the fork talk? from gpl? That's silly. Compiz-quinnstorm changed its name and continued on, and it's using a lot less or no compiz code at all of a sudden? The name change is mere formality and courtesy.
How about Murrine2 for this engine? No? Why not? That's what it is. Murrine modified. So we slap another name on it, call it a fork, and all is well, yet you felt a need to speak about something that didn't happen here?
....nevermind
:/
So don't you think that the month of "quinnstorm patches" are sad things?
I think they haven't got the right respect for dave reveman, ruining the name "compiz" and associating to another work, and they have continued using the work of dave for month.
Hopefully they got fork, now the situation it's really good...
Hey, perhaps his name was tarnished (and IMHO it was not), but what I've been trying to tell (or better, explain to) you is that's the risk you take when releasing your software under GPL. Furthermore, you are using the same BS argument Jorg "cdrecord" Schilling used when he tried to relicence cdrecord claiming SuSe, Debian, Mandrake... tarnished his holy name by adding dvd recording capabilities to his programme. He went that far to claim they breached a GPL Preamble (sic!), whilst at the same time he continued offering his own dvd recording software under closed source licence! I implore you, get over this since your own excellence cannot be destroyed by few copycat works...
You'll have to define 'fork'. Seems like you expect all the code to change, but it does not, and never does, else you wouldn't need the base to work from.
Why is/was compiz-quinnstorm sad? They improved on someone elses work, doing what the 'work' was not doing themeselves (working). Slow development. So it's a wonderful thing. Whether we have compiz-quinnstorn or beryl doesn't matter, it's just a name. Code is the same, just modified and added to but the backbone remains. So the situation was always very good. The problem was control freaks releasing under a license they either do not agree with, understand, or both, so they slow the advancement of the project, for lame excuses (not legit reasons). If anything was sad, that's it.
I don't know why this continues really. Nothing has happened here, and something that is not, is being applied where it is not applicable.
MY ENGINE IS NOT A REPOSITORY.
MY ENGINE IS NOT A REPOSITORY.
MY ENGINE IS NOT A REPOSITORY.
I can just stop developing if people use my code in that rough way. I can't make it closed source but surely i can stop releasing new murrine releases if people *drag and drop* my work.
Myself and cimi had been discussing it, and I hope we will cooperate in the future...
Anyway, I decided to use Murrine as a base, because it is my favorite engine (and there were only a few things I wanted to change...). If cimi thinks I should not use his work this way, then I will do it in a way both sides will be happy.
-your engine is gpl, is it not?
-you did start by using anothers engine did you not?
-you did have bugs and problems, did you not?
Relax a little, it's just a theme, not some big time app you sold under a strict license to a company. It's in the family so all is well.
I'm ok with forks, in fact murrine is a fork of clearlooks.
But till I get the fork I stop copying clearlooks code. This is respect, and as I had talk with the developer of dyndyn he agree with me and dyndyn will be merged into murrine (probably but not sure).
I was saying to people not to copy the work of someone else, this is the big mistake of the GPL licese, the lack of recpect to the coders.
I think you agree with me in this sense as now i explained better what i had to say in this topic
@cimi86
I must admit I have great respect for your work, however having read your latest comment I feel very surprised... You've obviously made grave mistake whilst reading GPL and understood it was an M$ EULA - the only right you haven't waived by using GPL as the licence is the copyright to the engine name - all the code is actually available, and if I decided to take it, make one line modification and call it, say, Fresco I would be a coding and perhaps moral midget but would have every legal right to do so and be so ;) Therefore, your comment is untrue and absurd, since the only thing I would have to say is that I made a fork, which sijp had already done...
You haven't understood my thought.
I'm referring that it is absolutely BAD for a developer know that someone use your work as a repository
THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF SIJP!!! IT'S A FREIND OF MINE IN CHAT.
I agree with forks, since murrine IS A FORK. But i need to tell people to RESPECT other people works.
I'm not against GPL, I dream OPENSOURCE all the day, I have no Closed OSs in my Pcs.
These words are for another thing, are to tell people that they have to RESPECT the work of other people...
Take an example: Microsoft gets murrine code and rename it to FRESCO and release in Vista... and if i will make modification Microsoft will redownload and rechange the name to FRESCO...
IS IT FUN??? Absolutely not.
THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF SIJP!!!
I hope you will understand these words since these words are not AGAINST opensource but they try to keep OPENSOURCE the BEST CHOICE for any developer, since we code and we need to be respect for our works.
actually no, I don't agree. My stuff is used all the time and sometimes butchered, sometimes I do not get credit, sometimes my name/identity is removed, sometines my design for an engine is used and I am not credited, sometime I make mods and improve others work and I get no credit...etc....but do I say anything? No, it's just eyecandy, it's just a hobby, it's just for fun, I need no pat on the back. Sure I get annoyed at times, I'd be lying if I said I didn't but....just eyecandy on peoples waste of time computer desktops mostly.
I realized what gpl means, and while even it is not usually followed correctly, I know most peoples intentions are good, so I don't worry about it because it's all in good fun and in the family. When I release something (gpl) for consumption, I realize it very well may be consumed beyond me wanting to be associated with it. Same thing happens in real life in the workplace everyday. No big deal, it's called life.
If you think gpl mean no copying, you should definately find another license, but don't threaten to stop production. Just get a different license and move on. Threats effect no one here. We are all expendable.
Hope you continue!
The only think i dislike of GPL is when your code could be use as a repository, for example compiz-quinnstorm.
I prefer that they got a fork... for the reason.. u know.
It's not fun when someune "abuse your work" to develop its. It is OK when someone gets the fork, but if someone copy your code and use it as a repo everytime... (IT IS NOT THE CASE OF SIJP)... it's not fun I think.
well the original code remains, so fork or no fork, copying is using the gpl advantage. Else, why make it gpl?
I haven't seen any abuse in the engines nor understand how abuse could exist simply from use so, I guess one of us is interpreting the gpl license wrong.
Why don't you read THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF SIJP?
I perfectly know that forks don't violate gpl...
I suggest you to start writing some code and release it so you can *probably* know what I'm referring to. That it's not related to "law" or "copyright infrangment", it's more a question of "sad things" that GPL doesn't preserve/take care.
This theme is really fancy stuff, however it manages to crash Linux DC++ (ldcpp) with "Floating point exception" error when horizontal scrollbars are used. Other than that - funky ;)
Ratings & Comments
45 Comments
okay in between all the disagreements and arguments i just wanted to say i think this is a great GTK engine and hope that further work will be continued.
As far as I understand your point (I am not very good in english so if I am wrong please feel free to correct me) you will mind if after the recent changes you are making to the engine and all the widgets got round edges, I take the code and see what is modified and what is not and then rewrite some stuff in it to allow square edges for the buttons and other widgets and then realease it with another name or just another version. Is this the case? Of course inside there will be some credits but who actually read that? You do not have legal not moral reason to stop me from doing this every time you release a newer version. Because you have decided to suspend the square edges by asking the users and because most of them wanted this. Well there is still part of this user base that do not want it and they will benefit this "fork". It will not be really a fork, just patch. Last but not in importance me and my colegues greatly respect your job as none of us has the time and will to write such software and as far as I know you are spending lot of time on this and we are using your engine fulltime. But still we have the right to change it in order for it to suit better our needs, and this is exactly the point of the open source. And I am really sorry you feel that way. What you maybe do not understand is that your job is important and good - so if someone is using it it is GOOD! As of Quinn's fork of the compiz - PLEASE - they kept sending and sending the patches to david but he was not willing to include it in the compiz tree. He wanted the compiz to go one way, quinn has her mind other way. As of this moment (and not from today or yesterday but for a long time now) the quinn's work is better as she's working mostly on this and david has other things to do. The reason for the fork was exaclty this - not beause someone was using someone else's work but because they had different view on how the project will be structured and what is important. And this is exactly what is going to happen with murrine if you keep including new stuff and in the same exclude already proved to be good stuff. Peter
Since people don't understand my thoughts I'm replying here... I'M WITH GPL NOT AGAINST. AND ALL MY WORKS WILL BE ALWAYS ALL GPL! You haven't understood my thought. I'm referring that it is absolutely BAD for a developer know that someone use your work as a repository THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF SIJP!!! IT'S A FREIND OF MINE IN CHAT. I agree with forks, since murrine IS A FORK. But i need to tell people to RESPECT other people works. I'm not against GPL, I dream OPENSOURCE all the day, I have no Closed OSs in my Pcs. These words are for another thing, are to tell people that they have to RESPECT the work of other people... Take an example: Microsoft gets murrine code and rename it to FRESCO and release in Vista... and if i will make modification Microsoft will redownload and rechange the name to FRESCO... IS IT FUN??? Absolutely not. THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF SIJP!!! I hope you will understand these words since these words are not AGAINST opensource but they try to keep OPENSOURCE the BEST CHOICE for any developer, since we code and we need to be respect for our works.
Temper, temper, now, now... There's no need to shout, really. Actually, I have understood and interpreted your words perfectly, however you persist in failing to comprehend - you have already agreed, by using GPL, to reuse of your code - even in the case of it being utilised as mere repo for someone else's work... Your mention of M$ is pure doublespeak argument, since they would not be legally allowed to link your GPLed code with their proprietary libs (there's some sort of trap here, since libgtk+ is LGPL actually). You have every right to be mad in case any potential abuse should take place, but sadly (or luckily) that is not what happened...
Yes this is not what happened and probably this engine will be merged in murrine or few features will be merged (not important) I was saying that for a coder is terribly frustrating knowing that someone use your code as a repository (this is not the case of dyndyn). I agree with forks but I dislike a project that lives on the shoulders of someone else... I't unfair... this was the case of Quinnstorm... fortunately now they got the fork... Thrust me that thing can me irritating when you spend full days to work and someone steal your work just because it is GPL... GPL needs something about forks more I think.
fork? what's with the fork talk? from gpl? That's silly. Compiz-quinnstorm changed its name and continued on, and it's using a lot less or no compiz code at all of a sudden? The name change is mere formality and courtesy. How about Murrine2 for this engine? No? Why not? That's what it is. Murrine modified. So we slap another name on it, call it a fork, and all is well, yet you felt a need to speak about something that didn't happen here? ....nevermind :/
So don't you think that the month of "quinnstorm patches" are sad things? I think they haven't got the right respect for dave reveman, ruining the name "compiz" and associating to another work, and they have continued using the work of dave for month. Hopefully they got fork, now the situation it's really good...
Hey, perhaps his name was tarnished (and IMHO it was not), but what I've been trying to tell (or better, explain to) you is that's the risk you take when releasing your software under GPL. Furthermore, you are using the same BS argument Jorg "cdrecord" Schilling used when he tried to relicence cdrecord claiming SuSe, Debian, Mandrake... tarnished his holy name by adding dvd recording capabilities to his programme. He went that far to claim they breached a GPL Preamble (sic!), whilst at the same time he continued offering his own dvd recording software under closed source licence! I implore you, get over this since your own excellence cannot be destroyed by few copycat works...
You'll have to define 'fork'. Seems like you expect all the code to change, but it does not, and never does, else you wouldn't need the base to work from. Why is/was compiz-quinnstorm sad? They improved on someone elses work, doing what the 'work' was not doing themeselves (working). Slow development. So it's a wonderful thing. Whether we have compiz-quinnstorn or beryl doesn't matter, it's just a name. Code is the same, just modified and added to but the backbone remains. So the situation was always very good. The problem was control freaks releasing under a license they either do not agree with, understand, or both, so they slow the advancement of the project, for lame excuses (not legit reasons). If anything was sad, that's it. I don't know why this continues really. Nothing has happened here, and something that is not, is being applied where it is not applicable.
Please, keep working to rewrite using new Murrine 0.20 :)
MY ENGINE IS NOT A REPOSITORY. MY ENGINE IS NOT A REPOSITORY. MY ENGINE IS NOT A REPOSITORY. I can just stop developing if people use my code in that rough way. I can't make it closed source but surely i can stop releasing new murrine releases if people *drag and drop* my work.
So may be YOU can use the great idea of DynDyn yourself? All I need - is the best results. :)
I've got this idea one month ago. See http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/2673/immaginepk2.png And i decided to develop this features when cairo will be faster
Myself and cimi had been discussing it, and I hope we will cooperate in the future... Anyway, I decided to use Murrine as a base, because it is my favorite engine (and there were only a few things I wanted to change...). If cimi thinks I should not use his work this way, then I will do it in a way both sides will be happy.
-your engine is gpl, is it not? -you did start by using anothers engine did you not? -you did have bugs and problems, did you not? Relax a little, it's just a theme, not some big time app you sold under a strict license to a company. It's in the family so all is well.
I'm ok with forks, in fact murrine is a fork of clearlooks. But till I get the fork I stop copying clearlooks code. This is respect, and as I had talk with the developer of dyndyn he agree with me and dyndyn will be merged into murrine (probably but not sure). I was saying to people not to copy the work of someone else, this is the big mistake of the GPL licese, the lack of recpect to the coders. I think you agree with me in this sense as now i explained better what i had to say in this topic
@cimi86 I must admit I have great respect for your work, however having read your latest comment I feel very surprised... You've obviously made grave mistake whilst reading GPL and understood it was an M$ EULA - the only right you haven't waived by using GPL as the licence is the copyright to the engine name - all the code is actually available, and if I decided to take it, make one line modification and call it, say, Fresco I would be a coding and perhaps moral midget but would have every legal right to do so and be so ;) Therefore, your comment is untrue and absurd, since the only thing I would have to say is that I made a fork, which sijp had already done...
You haven't understood my thought. I'm referring that it is absolutely BAD for a developer know that someone use your work as a repository THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF SIJP!!! IT'S A FREIND OF MINE IN CHAT. I agree with forks, since murrine IS A FORK. But i need to tell people to RESPECT other people works. I'm not against GPL, I dream OPENSOURCE all the day, I have no Closed OSs in my Pcs. These words are for another thing, are to tell people that they have to RESPECT the work of other people... Take an example: Microsoft gets murrine code and rename it to FRESCO and release in Vista... and if i will make modification Microsoft will redownload and rechange the name to FRESCO... IS IT FUN??? Absolutely not. THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF SIJP!!! I hope you will understand these words since these words are not AGAINST opensource but they try to keep OPENSOURCE the BEST CHOICE for any developer, since we code and we need to be respect for our works.
actually no, I don't agree. My stuff is used all the time and sometimes butchered, sometimes I do not get credit, sometimes my name/identity is removed, sometines my design for an engine is used and I am not credited, sometime I make mods and improve others work and I get no credit...etc....but do I say anything? No, it's just eyecandy, it's just a hobby, it's just for fun, I need no pat on the back. Sure I get annoyed at times, I'd be lying if I said I didn't but....just eyecandy on peoples waste of time computer desktops mostly. I realized what gpl means, and while even it is not usually followed correctly, I know most peoples intentions are good, so I don't worry about it because it's all in good fun and in the family. When I release something (gpl) for consumption, I realize it very well may be consumed beyond me wanting to be associated with it. Same thing happens in real life in the workplace everyday. No big deal, it's called life. If you think gpl mean no copying, you should definately find another license, but don't threaten to stop production. Just get a different license and move on. Threats effect no one here. We are all expendable. Hope you continue!
The only think i dislike of GPL is when your code could be use as a repository, for example compiz-quinnstorm. I prefer that they got a fork... for the reason.. u know. It's not fun when someune "abuse your work" to develop its. It is OK when someone gets the fork, but if someone copy your code and use it as a repo everytime... (IT IS NOT THE CASE OF SIJP)... it's not fun I think.
well the original code remains, so fork or no fork, copying is using the gpl advantage. Else, why make it gpl? I haven't seen any abuse in the engines nor understand how abuse could exist simply from use so, I guess one of us is interpreting the gpl license wrong.
Why don't you read THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF SIJP? I perfectly know that forks don't violate gpl... I suggest you to start writing some code and release it so you can *probably* know what I'm referring to. That it's not related to "law" or "copyright infrangment", it's more a question of "sad things" that GPL doesn't preserve/take care.
This theme is really fancy stuff, however it manages to crash Linux DC++ (ldcpp) with "Floating point exception" error when horizontal scrollbars are used. Other than that - funky ;)
this package install engine in to incorrect directory! /usr/lib/gtk-2.0/2.4.0/engines/ for ubuntu edgy it shuld be /usr/lib/gtk-2.0/2.10.0/engines/
2author Dyndyn Gtk+2 Engine excellent engine!