Re: new LyX 2.2.0 installer for Windows Vista is available

[Georg Baum]

Richard Heck wrote:

> I'll ask again: What is the status of the mingw build? Last I heard, it
> built our executables fine and the only issue was with building the
> installer.

The mingw build works fine in several flavours:

-natively on windows as described in INSTALL.Win32 (uses autotools)

- cross-compiling from linux using development/cmake/scripts/xmingw (uses 
cmake, depends on an older 32bit qt build offered by Peter which is 
downloaded)

- cross compiling from linux using MXE and autotools as described in 
INSTALL.Win32 (works for 32 and 64 bit)

I did not test the first option myself, this was contributed by a user. For 
both cross-compilations I also tested the resulting executable with wine and 
could not see any problem (but of course a test on real windows would be 
good). The biggest difficulty for cross-compilation is to obtain a suitable 
qt: It needs to be configured for windows, but all the utilities like moc, 
uic etc need to run on linux. qt does not offer a binary build for cross-
compilation, creating it is much work, but fortunately the nice people from 
http://mxe.cc do that for us and offer the result in an easy to use form.

I am pretty sure that a MXE build could be done with cmake very easily as 
well, it just needs somebody to do it and to document the needed cmake 
command line.


Concerning the installer I have no idea. Running nsis on wine is supposed to 
be no problem, but from my experiences with the inaccurate and outdated MSVC 
instructions in INSTALL.Win32 I would not expect that building the installer 
works out of the box. However, this is something I'll probably try one day, 
but first I want to have easy and working instructions to build LyX with 
MSVC. Even if we do not build the official version with MSVC anymore in the 
future, it really helps if interested people can use MSVC and maybe become 
contributors.


Georg

Re: new LyX 2.2.0 installer for Windows Vista is available

[Richard Heck]

On 06/25/2016 12:00 PM, Georg Baum wrote:
> Uwe Stöhr wrote:
>
>> Richard, could you please put it on ftp.lyx.org? Could you please also
>> write a news message that we now have a Vista installer but that this
>> installer should not be used for other Windows versions than Vista.
> This is not possible for legal reasons. Our own license forbids to 
> distribute binaries without corresponding source code. This includes the 
> build scripts (see https://www.lyx.org/License):
>
> "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making 
> modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all 
> the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface 
> definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and 
> installation of the executable."
>
> I am preaching since years that every binary we distribute must be built in 
> a reproducible way from identifiable, publicy available sources (including 
> the build scripts).
>
> Currently only our own OS X build and the linux builds offered by Livio and 
> linux distributors are 100% reproducible. The windows installer is not, the 
> build instructions are incomplete and partially wrong, and a binary 
> dependency package is needed which contains unneeded stuff such as old MSVC 
> dlls. How this binary dependency package was produced is unknown and not 
> reproducible.
>
> Adding two binaries from a different source to the installer makes it even 
> more unreproducible. We need to go into the other direction. That is also 
> the reason why I spend lots of time for helping others with MSVC and cmake, 
> although I have zero benefit from it personally.

I'll ask again: What is the status of the mingw build? Last I heard, it
built our executables fine and the only issue was with building the
installer.

Richard

Re: new LyX 2.2.0 installer for Windows Vista is available

[Georg Baum]

Uwe Stöhr wrote:

> Richard, could you please put it on ftp.lyx.org? Could you please also
> write a news message that we now have a Vista installer but that this
> installer should not be used for other Windows versions than Vista.

This is not possible for legal reasons. Our own license forbids to 
distribute binaries without corresponding source code. This includes the 
build scripts (see https://www.lyx.org/License):

"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making 
modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all 
the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface 
definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and 
installation of the executable."

I am preaching since years that every binary we distribute must be built in 
a reproducible way from identifiable, publicy available sources (including 
the build scripts).

Currently only our own OS X build and the linux builds offered by Livio and 
linux distributors are 100% reproducible. The windows installer is not, the 
build instructions are incomplete and partially wrong, and a binary 
dependency package is needed which contains unneeded stuff such as old MSVC 
dlls. How this binary dependency package was produced is unknown and not 
reproducible.

Adding two binaries from a different source to the installer makes it even 
more unreproducible. We need to go into the other direction. That is also 
the reason why I spend lots of time for helping others with MSVC and cmake, 
although I have zero benefit from it personally.

> Thus please keep use welcome new people and encouraging to join the LyX
> developer team. LyX need manpower and I am happy about every new
> developer. We also need people developing on Windows.

Please stop implying that you are the only one welcoming new people. 
Everybody welcomes new contributors, especially those who help to get a 
better windows build.


Georg

Re: new LyX 2.2.0 installer for Windows Vista is available

[Georg Baum]

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:

> I am not completely sure why we are having this surreal discussion. Uwe,
> what is wrong with the following?
> 1/ Dima provides a patch that makes a Vista compatible build
> 2/ Kornel checks that the cmake part good enough for inclusion
> 3/ Uwe does his usual builds using this new code (the build are still OK
> on modern windows, right?)
> 4/ Dima gets to check the binaries before we distribute it

I would like to see this procedure.


Georg

Re: new LyX 2.2.0 installer for Windows Vista is available

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

Le 25/06/2016 16:45, Richard Heck a écrit :

There is a discussion about this topic in the bug tracker that I
cannot understand. Scott and Richard are concerned that Dima'S build
contains malware. This is not fair. Dima invested some spare time to
fiddle around with Qt to prepare a Vista build and to test it. To
presume that a new contributor is not trustworthy is not the way we
should welcome new people!


This is a complete misunderstanding of what Scott and I were saying. We
think that our officially releasing a LyX binary on the LyX website,
especially one signed with the LyX key, means that we are making certain
sorts of guarantees to people. We cannot make those guarantees if the
binary has been built by someone we do not at all know.


I am not completely sure why we are having this surreal discussion. Uwe, 
what is wrong with the following?

1/ Dima provides a patch that makes a Vista compatible build
2/ Kornel checks that the cmake part good enough for inclusion
3/ Uwe does his usual builds using this new code (the build are still OK 
on modern windows, right?)

4/ Dima gets to check the binaries before we distribute it

This is not rocket science, is it? Why make it so dramatic?

JMarc

PS: BTW, did we drop XP support already?

Re: new LyX 2.2.0 installer for Windows Vista is available

[Richard Heck]

On 06/25/2016 05:13 AM, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Dear LyXers,
>
> there is a new Windows installer available that provides support for
> Windows Vista:
> http://ftp.lyx.de/LyX%202.2.0/LyX-220-Installer-Vista-3.exe
>
> Dima kindly prepared the binary from the 2.2.0 tarball, I checked it
> against viruses and malware using commercial antivirus software, I
> created the installer with it and Dima tested that everything works
> fine on Vista.
>
> Richard, could you please put it on ftp.lyx.org? Could you please also
> write a news message that we now have a Vista installer but that this
> installer should not be used for other Windows versions than Vista.
>
> ---
>
> There is a discussion about this topic in the bug tracker that I
> cannot understand. Scott and Richard are concerned that Dima'S build
> contains malware. This is not fair. Dima invested some spare time to
> fiddle around with Qt to prepare a Vista build and to test it. To
> presume that a new contributor is not trustworthy is not the way we
> should welcome new people!

This is a complete misunderstanding of what Scott and I were saying. We
think that our officially releasing a LyX binary on the LyX website,
especially one signed with the LyX key, means that we are making certain
sorts of guarantees to people. We cannot make those guarantees if the
binary has been built by someone we do not at all know.

People don't even get commit rights until they've submitted a number of
patches and proved themselves capable.

> I checked Dima's build wit the anti-virus software at work (the
> installer only contains the lyx.exe and tex2lyx.exe from Dima, all
> other LyX files are identic with the other installers I released for
> 2.2.0.
> However, in general, if we don't trust new people investing their
> spare time, we will be lost. To dramatize: Some of you have never seen
> me, nobody knows my build system and could cross-check if I don't add
> spyware to the Win installers. So you have to trust me too.

You have been around here rather a long time.

> Thus please keep use welcome new people and encouraging to join the
> LyX developer team. LyX need manpower and I am happy about every new
> developer. We also need people developing on Windows.

Obviously. No one is saying we should not encourage Dima to submit
patches and ultimately gain commit rights. This is an entirely different
issue.

Richard

Re: new LyX 2.1.4 Win installer for FTP

[Richard Heck]

On 10/13/2015 07:05 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote:

Hi Richard,

due to bug http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/9733 I released a new 
installer:


http://ftp.lyx.de/LyX%202.1.4/

Could you please put it on ftp.lyx.org?

The bug is not our fault but the users of course expect that a basic 
thing like the spell checker works.


Done.

rh

Re: [devel-list] Re: New LyX website

[christian . ridderstrom]

On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Pavel Sanda wrote:

on a different note: what about this header? 
http://195.113.31.123/~sanda/junk/header.gif


If it's for wiki.lyx.org, I'd like to wait with messing around with it 
until we've sorted out a released www.lyx.org.


After that, the room for improving wiki.lyx.org is... substantial... :-)

/C

--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44   http://www.md.kth.se/~chr

Re: [devel-list] Re: New LyX website

[Pavel Sanda]

 on a different note: what about this header? 
 http://195.113.31.123/~sanda/junk/header.gif

 If it's for wiki.lyx.org,

no i meant it for www.lyx.org

pavel

Re: [devel-list] Re: New LyX website

[christian . ridderstrom]

On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Pavel Sanda wrote:


on a different note: what about this header?
http://195.113.31.123/~sanda/junk/header.gif


If it's for wiki.lyx.org,


no i meant it for www.lyx.org


Ok, I'll bounce that ball to Joost... Joost?

/C

--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44   http://www.md.kth.se/~chr

Re: [devel-list] Re: New LyX website

[christian . ridderstrom]

On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Pavel Sanda wrote:

on a different note: what about this header? 
http://195.113.31.123/~sanda/junk/header.gif


If it's for wiki.lyx.org, I'd like to wait with messing around with it 
until we've sorted out a released www.lyx.org.


After that, the room for improving wiki.lyx.org is... substantial... :-)

/C

--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44   http://www.md.kth.se/~chr

Re: [devel-list] Re: New LyX website

[Pavel Sanda]

>> on a different note: what about this header? 
>> http://195.113.31.123/~sanda/junk/header.gif
>
> If it's for wiki.lyx.org,

no i meant it for www.lyx.org

pavel

Re: [devel-list] Re: New LyX website

[christian . ridderstrom]

On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Pavel Sanda wrote:


on a different note: what about this header?
http://195.113.31.123/~sanda/junk/header.gif


If it's for wiki.lyx.org,


no i meant it for www.lyx.org


Ok, I'll bounce that ball to Joost... Joost?

/C

--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44   http://www.md.kth.se/~chr

[devel-list] Re: New LyX website

[christian . ridderstrom]

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:


Rex C. Eastbourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Glad you like it Rich! Christian, Joost, Jean-Marc, Pavel, and others
were all instrumental in putting this all together.


I do not think I deserve any credit here...

BTW, is it possible to hide index.php/Main from the URLs? It is pretty 
ugly.


I agree it's ugly and I've been thinking about it and I've even already 
asked for your help in solving it:-). Ideallly however, the solution 
should to take into account any future interaction with wiki.lyx.org.


Today we have the following:

* The wiki corresponding to wiki.lyx.org, and in it...
** Several groups primarily for users, e.g. LyX/, Examples/ etc
** Some groups primarily for develoeprs, e.g. Devel/ etc

* The wiki corresponding to www.lyx.org/test, and in it...
** One group, Main/, containing the old web pages

You, Jean-Marc, can make the web server rewrite URIs as follows:

www.lyx.org/XXX -- www.lyx.org/index.php/Main/XXX

Users would then never need to see 'index.php/Main' - I've emailed you 
about this, it's related to changing some config in /etc/httpd/virtual.d/ 
- see that post.


However, maybe we don't want to have to wikis in the future? Instead, we 
might think it's more convenient to let the the official web pages 
simply be one of the other groups in the wiki. This would make it easy to 
link between pages, and also easy to search all of it at once. Please note 
that we could still map as follows:


* www.lyx.org/Page  - ../Main/Page
* wiki.lyx.org/LyX/Page - The group LyX/
* wiki.lyx.org/Devel/Page   - .../Devel/Page

Finally, I'd like some suggestions in what to call the group that contains 
the official web pages... Here are some ideas:


* Main/ - what we have today
* WWW/
* Official/

'WWW' migth be ok, but I'm not super thrilled...

Now you're probably wondering why the name of gthe group matter... Well, 
one reason is that accessing the web pages through a 'wiki'-like 
interface, the name of the group should be descriptive. In addition, if a 
regular wiki page links to a 'web' page, the name of group will have to be 
used.


Ideas for the name?

/C

--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44   http://www.md.kth.se/~chr

Re: [devel-list] Re: New LyX website

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 You, Jean-Marc, can make the web server rewrite URIs as follows:

   www.lyx.org/XXX -- www.lyx.org/index.php/Main/XXX

 Users would then never need to see 'index.php/Main' - I've emailed you
 about this, it's related to changing some config in
 /etc/httpd/virtual.d/ - see that post.

OK sorry I thought this was not needed anymore. I'll dig out your mail
and see what I can do.

 However, maybe we don't want to have to wikis in the future? Instead,
 we might think it's more convenient to let the the official web
 pages simply be one of the other groups in the wiki. This would make
 it easy to link between pages, and also easy to search all of it at
 once. Please note that we could still map as follows:

I think I'd prefer two different servers www.lyx.org and wiki.lyx.org.
Of course this is just a matter of tweaking virtual servers, but the
goal is to separate (also visually I guess) the official part of the
site from the community part.

 * www.lyx.org/Page  - ../Main/Page
 * wiki.lyx.org/LyX/Page - The group LyX/
 * wiki.lyx.org/Devel/Page   - .../Devel/Page

This is definitely the outcome I would prefer. Are we sure that all
development pages should be in the wiki part (do we need some
'official' devel pages?).

 * Main/   - what we have today
 * WWW/
 * Official/

Main or official are OK to me.

 Now you're probably wondering why the name of gthe group matter...
 Well, one reason is that accessing the web pages through a 'wiki'-like
 interface, the name of the group should be descriptive. In addition,
 if a regular wiki page links to a 'web' page, the name of group will
 have to be used.

 Ideas for the name?

 /C

 -- 
 Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44   http://www.md.kth.se/~chr

Re: [devel-list] Re: New LyX website

[christian . ridderstrom]

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:

OK sorry I thought this was not needed anymore. I'll dig out your mail 
and see what I can do.


It's the post I sent yesterday, or maybe on Saturday, not the earlier one.
It's some rewriting of the URI that needs to be done.


Please note that we could still map as follows:


I think I'd prefer two different servers www.lyx.org and wiki.lyx.org.


What do you mean with two servers? (I want to make sure we understand each 
other here... www.lyx.org/ would be used to retrieve the official web 
pages even if a single wiki is used).


Of course this is just a matter of tweaking virtual servers, but the 
goal is to separate (also visually I guess) the official part of the 
site from the community part.


It's trivial[*] to use different skins for different groups. In fact, a 
wiki group was originally intended to be more or less a self-contained 
wiki in itself. Anyway, we certainly make the visual appearance of ...



* www.lyx.org/Page  - ../Main/Page


... be very different from ...


* wiki.lyx.org/LyX/Page - The group LyX/
* wiki.lyx.org/Devel/Page   - .../Devel/Page


even if a single wiki is used as a the backend.

This is definitely the outcome I would prefer. Are we sure that all 
development pages should be in the wiki part (do we need some 'official' 
devel pages?).


Hmm... not sure why we'd need that to be honest...  And we're actually 
just talking about visual appearance, which can trivially be made differnt 
for different wiki groups...


(If I create a file config/Official.php, that script is only executed


* Main/ - what we have today
* WWW/
* Official/


Main or official are OK to me.


Ok, maybe Official is good... it indiciates a bit more severity

/Christian

[*] To do settings specific to a group, you can for instance create file
local/Official.php
and let that file contain:
$Skin = 'lyx';

--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44   http://www.md.kth.se/~chr

Re: [devel-list] Re: New LyX website

[Pavel Sanda]

 Are we sure that all 
 development pages should be in the wiki part (do we need some 'official' 
 devel pages?).

 Hmm... not sure why we'd need that to be honest...

- clear distinction of devel pages we care and we do not
- its good to have some basic info for development newcomers, you
  get easily lost in wiki devel unless you know exactly where are
  you going.

pavel

Re: [devel-list] Re: New LyX website

[Pavel Sanda]

  * www.lyx.org/Page- ../Main/Page
  * wiki.lyx.org/LyX/Page   - The group LyX/
  * wiki.lyx.org/Devel/Page - .../Devel/Page
 
 This is definitely the outcome I would prefer. Are we sure that all
 development pages should be in the wiki part (do we need some
 'official' devel pages?).

on contrary i think we should keep the official part of development pages.
maybe we can discuss which subsections are needed.
the wiki part of devel pages is messy and shouldn't be mixed with official
stuff.

from my pov:
- section Development News should be removed and its main page should be moved
under development. 
- i also wonder about usefulness of Stuff to read section

pavel

Re: [devel-list] Re: New LyX website

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 What do you mean with two servers? (I want to make sure we understand
 each other here... www.lyx.org/ would be used to retrieve the official
 web pages even if a single wiki is used).

Yes.

 It's trivial[*] to use different skins for different groups. In fact,
 a wiki group was originally intended to be more or less a
 self-contained wiki in itself. 

That is what I mean.

 This is definitely the outcome I would prefer. Are we sure that all
 development pages should be in the wiki part (do we need some
 official' devel pages?).

 Hmm... not sure why we'd need that to be honest...  And we're actually
 just talking about visual appearance, which can trivially be made
 differnt for different wiki groups...

There are the pages we care about, and the ramblings from developers
(more like note keeping). We have to make sure the former is clear,
the later is 'best-effort'.

JMarc

Re: [devel-list] Re: New LyX website

[christian . ridderstrom]

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:

This is definitely the outcome I would prefer. Are we sure that all 
development pages should be in the wiki part (do we need some 
official' devel pages?).


Ok, it sounds like most agree that it's ok to use a single wiki, assuming 
we have the following mapping (entry points):


  URI-wiki:Group/Page
* wiki.lyx.org/Group/Page   Group/Page
* www.lyx.org/Page  Official/Page
* www.lyx.org/devel/PageOfficialDevel/Page

The URI, www.lyx.org/devel, will point to the official developers' pages 
that we care about.


When someone accesses the wiki through

www.lyx.org/Page

and

www.lyx.org/devel/Page,

It is an open question what should happen if someone goes to the following 
URI:


wiki.lyx.org/Official/Page,

Is it ok if they are then shown the official URI? (But cannot edit it 
unless they log in?). Alternatively, we can redirect them to 
www.lyx.org/Page, or somewhere else.


Note that a link such as [[Official/AboutLyX]] will still become a valid 
link and vice versa.


Does anyone have objections to the above?

regards,
/Christian

--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44   http://www.md.kth.se/~chr

Re: [devel-list] Re: New LyX website

[christian . ridderstrom]

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Pavel Sanda wrote:


Are we sure that all
development pages should be in the wiki part (do we need some 'official'
devel pages?).


Hmm... not sure why we'd need that to be honest...


- clear distinction of devel pages we care and we do not
- its good to have some basic info for development newcomers, you
 get easily lost in wiki devel unless you know exactly where are
 you going.


You had me convinced a while back, but thanks for the additional 
motivation. If those wiki pages were up, I'd copy your post there!


/C

--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44   http://www.md.kth.se/~chr

Re: [devel-list] Re: New LyX website

[Pavel Sanda]

 Are we sure that all
 development pages should be in the wiki part (do we need some 'official'
 devel pages?).

 Hmm... not sure why we'd need that to be honest...

 - clear distinction of devel pages we care and we do not
 - its good to have some basic info for development newcomers, you
  get easily lost in wiki devel unless you know exactly where are
  you going.

 You had me convinced a while back, but thanks for the additional 
 motivation. If those wiki pages were up, I'd copy your post there!

on a different note: what about this header?
http://195.113.31.123/~sanda/junk/header.gif

i didn't find a way how to put it to wiki.
Christian can you put it in, if you find this version better?

pavel

Re: [devel-list] Re: New LyX website

[Joost Verburg]

Pavel Sanda wrote:

Are we sure that all
development pages should be in the wiki part (do we need some 'official'
devel pages?).

Hmm... not sure why we'd need that to be honest...

- clear distinction of devel pages we care and we do not
- its good to have some basic info for development newcomers, you
 get easily lost in wiki devel unless you know exactly where are
 you going.
You had me convinced a while back, but thanks for the additional 
motivation. If those wiki pages were up, I'd copy your post there!


on a different note: what about this header?
http://195.113.31.123/~sanda/junk/header.gif

i didn't find a way how to put it to wiki.
Christian can you put it in, if you find this version better?


In my opinion that logo looks just too unprofessional, especially when 
combined with the mascot. The colors are already back because of your 
request :)


Joost

Re: [devel-list] Re: New LyX website

[Pavel Sanda]

 combined with the mascot. The colors are already back because of your 
 request :)

i really can't help it :D
pavel

Re: [devel-list] Re: New LyX website

[Rex C. Eastbourne]

Joost Verburg wrote:
In my opinion that logo looks just too unprofessional, especially when 
combined with the mascot. The colors are already back because of your 
request :)


Joost

What if we had some shadow or other contrast behind the letters of that 
LyX logo that's currently on www.lyx.org/test ? I think that would 
look nice.


Maybe Andrei has ideas about that part, too.

Rex

[devel-list] Re: New LyX website

[christian . ridderstrom]

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:


"Rex C. Eastbourne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:


Glad you like it Rich! Christian, Joost, Jean-Marc, Pavel, and others
were all instrumental in putting this all together.


I do not think I deserve any credit here...

BTW, is it possible to hide "index.php/Main" from the URLs? It is pretty 
ugly.


I agree it's ugly and I've been thinking about it and I've even already 
asked for your help in solving it:-). Ideallly however, the solution 
should to take into account any future interaction with wiki.lyx.org.


Today we have the following:

* The wiki corresponding to wiki.lyx.org, and in it...
** Several groups primarily for users, e.g. LyX/, Examples/ etc
** Some groups primarily for develoeprs, e.g. Devel/ etc

* The wiki corresponding to www.lyx.org/test, and in it...
** One group, Main/, containing the old web pages

You, Jean-Marc, can make the web server rewrite URIs as follows:

www.lyx.org/XXX --> www.lyx.org/index.php/Main/XXX

Users would then never need to see 'index.php/Main' - I've emailed you 
about this, it's related to changing some config in /etc/httpd/virtual.d/ 
- see that post.


However, maybe we don't want to have to wikis in the future? Instead, we 
might think it's more convenient to let the the "official" web pages 
simply be one of the other groups in the wiki. This would make it easy to 
link between pages, and also easy to search all of it at once. Please note 
that we could still map as follows:


* www.lyx.org/  -> ../Main/
* wiki.lyx.org/LyX/ -> The group LyX/
* wiki.lyx.org/Devel/   -> .../Devel/

Finally, I'd like some suggestions in what to call the group that contains 
the official web pages... Here are some ideas:


* Main/ - what we have today
* WWW/
* Official/

'WWW' migth be ok, but I'm not super thrilled...

Now you're probably wondering why the name of gthe group matter... Well, 
one reason is that accessing the web pages through a 'wiki'-like 
interface, the name of the group should be descriptive. In addition, if a 
regular wiki page links to a 'web' page, the name of group will have to be 
used.


Ideas for the name?

/C

--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44   http://www.md.kth.se/~chr

Re: [devel-list] Re: New LyX website

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> You, Jean-Marc, can make the web server rewrite URIs as follows:
>
>   www.lyx.org/XXX --> www.lyx.org/index.php/Main/XXX
>
> Users would then never need to see 'index.php/Main' - I've emailed you
> about this, it's related to changing some config in
> /etc/httpd/virtual.d/ - see that post.

OK sorry I thought this was not needed anymore. I'll dig out your mail
and see what I can do.

> However, maybe we don't want to have to wikis in the future? Instead,
> we might think it's more convenient to let the the "official" web
> pages simply be one of the other groups in the wiki. This would make
> it easy to link between pages, and also easy to search all of it at
> once. Please note that we could still map as follows:

I think I'd prefer two different servers www.lyx.org and wiki.lyx.org.
Of course this is just a matter of tweaking virtual servers, but the
goal is to separate (also visually I guess) the official part of the
site from the community part.

> * www.lyx.org/  -> ../Main/
> * wiki.lyx.org/LyX/ -> The group LyX/
> * wiki.lyx.org/Devel/   -> .../Devel/

This is definitely the outcome I would prefer. Are we sure that all
development pages should be in the wiki part (do we need some
'official' devel pages?).

> * Main/   - what we have today
> * WWW/
> * Official/

Main or official are OK to me.

> Now you're probably wondering why the name of gthe group matter...
> Well, one reason is that accessing the web pages through a 'wiki'-like
> interface, the name of the group should be descriptive. In addition,
> if a regular wiki page links to a 'web' page, the name of group will
> have to be used.
>
> Ideas for the name?
>
> /C
>
> -- 
> Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44   http://www.md.kth.se/~chr

Re: [devel-list] Re: New LyX website

[christian . ridderstrom]

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:

OK sorry I thought this was not needed anymore. I'll dig out your mail 
and see what I can do.


It's the post I sent yesterday, or maybe on Saturday, not the earlier one.
It's some rewriting of the URI that needs to be done.


Please note that we could still map as follows:


I think I'd prefer two different servers www.lyx.org and wiki.lyx.org.


What do you mean with two servers? (I want to make sure we understand each 
other here... www.lyx.org/ would be used to retrieve the official web 
pages even if a single wiki is used).


Of course this is just a matter of tweaking virtual servers, but the 
goal is to separate (also visually I guess) the official part of the 
site from the community part.


It's trivial[*] to use different skins for different groups. In fact, a 
wiki group was originally intended to be more or less a self-contained 
wiki in itself. Anyway, we certainly make the visual appearance of ...



* www.lyx.org/  -> ../Main/


... be very different from ...


* wiki.lyx.org/LyX/ -> The group LyX/
* wiki.lyx.org/Devel/   -> .../Devel/


even if a single wiki is used as a the backend.

This is definitely the outcome I would prefer. Are we sure that all 
development pages should be in the wiki part (do we need some 'official' 
devel pages?).


Hmm... not sure why we'd need that to be honest...  And we're actually 
just talking about visual appearance, which can trivially be made differnt 
for different wiki groups...


(If I create a file config/Official.php, that script is only executed


* Main/ - what we have today
* WWW/
* Official/


Main or official are OK to me.


Ok, maybe Official is good... it indiciates a bit more severity

/Christian

[*] To do settings specific to a group, you can for instance create file
local/Official.php
and let that file contain:
$Skin = 'lyx';

--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44   http://www.md.kth.se/~chr

Re: [devel-list] Re: New LyX website

[Pavel Sanda]

>> Are we sure that all 
>> development pages should be in the wiki part (do we need some 'official' 
>> devel pages?).
>
> Hmm... not sure why we'd need that to be honest...

- clear distinction of devel pages we care and we do not
- its good to have some basic info for development newcomers, you
  get easily lost in wiki devel unless you know exactly where are
  you going.

pavel

Re: [devel-list] Re: New LyX website

[Pavel Sanda]

> > * www.lyx.org/-> ../Main/
> > * wiki.lyx.org/LyX/   -> The group LyX/
> > * wiki.lyx.org/Devel/ -> .../Devel/
> 
> This is definitely the outcome I would prefer. Are we sure that all
> development pages should be in the wiki part (do we need some
> 'official' devel pages?).

on contrary i think we should keep the official part of development pages.
maybe we can discuss which subsections are needed.
the wiki part of devel pages is messy and shouldn't be mixed with official
stuff.

from my pov:
- section Development News should be removed and its main page should be moved
under development. 
- i also wonder about usefulness of "Stuff to read" section

pavel

Re: [devel-list] Re: New LyX website

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> What do you mean with two servers? (I want to make sure we understand
> each other here... www.lyx.org/ would be used to retrieve the official
> web pages even if a single wiki is used).

Yes.

> It's trivial[*] to use different skins for different groups. In fact,
> a wiki group was originally intended to be more or less a
> self-contained wiki in itself. 

That is what I mean.

>> This is definitely the outcome I would prefer. Are we sure that all
>> development pages should be in the wiki part (do we need some
>> official' devel pages?).
>
> Hmm... not sure why we'd need that to be honest...  And we're actually
> just talking about visual appearance, which can trivially be made
> differnt for different wiki groups...

There are the pages we care about, and the ramblings from developers
(more like note keeping). We have to make sure the former is clear,
the later is 'best-effort'.

JMarc

Re: [devel-list] Re: New LyX website

[christian . ridderstrom]

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:

This is definitely the outcome I would prefer. Are we sure that all 
development pages should be in the wiki part (do we need some 
official' devel pages?).


Ok, it sounds like most agree that it's ok to use a single wiki, assuming 
we have the following mapping (entry points):


  URI->wiki:/
* wiki.lyx.org//   /
* www.lyx.org/  Official/
* www.lyx.org/devel/OfficialDevel/

The URI, www.lyx.org/devel, will point to the official developers' pages 
that we care about.


When someone accesses the wiki through

www.lyx.org/

and

www.lyx.org/devel/,

It is an open question what should happen if someone goes to the following 
URI:


wiki.lyx.org/Official/,

Is it ok if they are then shown the official URI? (But cannot edit it 
unless they log in?). Alternatively, we can redirect them to 
www.lyx.org/, or somewhere else.


Note that a link such as [[Official/AboutLyX]] will still become a valid 
link and vice versa.


Does anyone have objections to the above?

regards,
/Christian

--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44   http://www.md.kth.se/~chr

Re: [devel-list] Re: New LyX website

[christian . ridderstrom]

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Pavel Sanda wrote:


Are we sure that all
development pages should be in the wiki part (do we need some 'official'
devel pages?).


Hmm... not sure why we'd need that to be honest...


- clear distinction of devel pages we care and we do not
- its good to have some basic info for development newcomers, you
 get easily lost in wiki devel unless you know exactly where are
 you going.


You had me convinced a while back, but thanks for the additional 
motivation. If those wiki pages were up, I'd copy your post there!


/C

--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44   http://www.md.kth.se/~chr

Re: [devel-list] Re: New LyX website

[Pavel Sanda]

 Are we sure that all
 development pages should be in the wiki part (do we need some 'official'
 devel pages?).
>>>
>>> Hmm... not sure why we'd need that to be honest...
>>
>> - clear distinction of devel pages we care and we do not
>> - its good to have some basic info for development newcomers, you
>>  get easily lost in wiki devel unless you know exactly where are
>>  you going.
>
> You had me convinced a while back, but thanks for the additional 
> motivation. If those wiki pages were up, I'd copy your post there!

on a different note: what about this header?
http://195.113.31.123/~sanda/junk/header.gif

i didn't find a way how to put it to wiki.
Christian can you put it in, if you find this version better?

pavel

Re: [devel-list] Re: New LyX website

[Joost Verburg]

Pavel Sanda wrote:

Are we sure that all
development pages should be in the wiki part (do we need some 'official'
devel pages?).

Hmm... not sure why we'd need that to be honest...

- clear distinction of devel pages we care and we do not
- its good to have some basic info for development newcomers, you
 get easily lost in wiki devel unless you know exactly where are
 you going.
You had me convinced a while back, but thanks for the additional 
motivation. If those wiki pages were up, I'd copy your post there!


on a different note: what about this header?
http://195.113.31.123/~sanda/junk/header.gif

i didn't find a way how to put it to wiki.
Christian can you put it in, if you find this version better?


In my opinion that logo looks just too unprofessional, especially when 
combined with the mascot. The colors are already back because of your 
request :)


Joost

Re: [devel-list] Re: New LyX website

[Pavel Sanda]

> combined with the mascot. The colors are already back because of your 
> request :)

i really can't help it :D
pavel

Re: [devel-list] Re: New LyX website

[Rex C. Eastbourne]

Joost Verburg wrote:
In my opinion that logo looks just too unprofessional, especially when 
combined with the mascot. The colors are already back because of your 
request :)


Joost

What if we had some shadow or other contrast behind the letters of that 
"LyX" logo that's currently on www.lyx.org/test ? I think that would 
look nice.


Maybe Andrei has ideas about that part, too.

Rex

Re: New lyx icon (fwd)

[Abdelrazak Younes]

It would be a pity to slip on that... Could somebody (Bennett?) generate 
a patch so that we can test the proposed new banner and icons easily?


Abdel.


Bennett Helm wrote:
On Apr 2, 2007, at 7:19 PM, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



-- Forwarded message --
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 23:14:56 +0200
From: Lorenzo Paulatto 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Newsgroups: gmane.editors.lyx.general
Subject: New lyx icon

Dear lyx users,
during the last years I grew increasingly annoyed by the (in my opinion)
horrible lyx default icon.

Finally, during last rainy sunday afternoon I draw a couple new icons in
SVG (using inkscape), they aren't great, but I think you may be 
interested.


You can find the pack here
http://people.sissa.it/~paulatto/lyx_logo.tgz. It contains two
flavours: hicolor and (a bit like) crystal.

Note that the smaller size PNGs (22x22, 16x16) aren't just a render of
the SVG but have been edited a bit by hand with the Gimp)

Bye
--Lorenzo `paulatz' Paulatto
Trieste


While I'm at it with the banner, here's the LyX icon I've been using for 
Mac. More subdued than Lorenzo's, and with the same font (and color) 
LyX as the banner I sent earlier.


Bennett

Re: New lyx icon (fwd)

[Bennett Helm]

On Apr 3, 2007, at 4:06 AM, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:

It would be a pity to slip on that... Could somebody (Bennett?)  
generate a patch so that we can test the proposed new banner and  
icons easily?


I'm not sure how to produce a patch for an image file like  
banner.png; isn't testing it as simple as substituting the file I  
already sent for the one in lib/images/?


I don't know anything about icon production for linux or windows.  
(The LyX application icon for Mac can already be found at development/ 
MacOS/LyX.app/Contents/Resources/ ... along with a similar document  
icon.)


Bennett

Re: New lyx icon (fwd)

[Georg Baum]

Bennett Helm wrote:

 On Apr 3, 2007, at 4:06 AM, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
 
 It would be a pity to slip on that... Could somebody (Bennett?)
 generate a patch so that we can test the proposed new banner and
 icons easily?
 
 I'm not sure how to produce a patch for an image file like
 banner.png;

It is not possible. patch and diff do only work for text files
(including .xpm - although it is an image the file format is textual).

 isn't testing it as simple as substituting the file I 
 already sent for the one in lib/images/?

Yes.


Georg

Re: New lyx icon (fwd)

[Abdelrazak Younes]

It would be a pity to slip on that... Could somebody (Bennett?) generate 
a patch so that we can test the proposed new banner and icons easily?


Abdel.


Bennett Helm wrote:
On Apr 2, 2007, at 7:19 PM, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



-- Forwarded message --
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 23:14:56 +0200
From: Lorenzo Paulatto 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Newsgroups: gmane.editors.lyx.general
Subject: New lyx icon

Dear lyx users,
during the last years I grew increasingly annoyed by the (in my opinion)
horrible lyx default icon.

Finally, during last rainy sunday afternoon I draw a couple new icons in
SVG (using inkscape), they aren't great, but I think you may be 
interested.


You can find the pack here
. It contains two
flavours: hicolor and (a bit like) crystal.

Note that the smaller size PNGs (22x22, 16x16) aren't just a render of
the SVG but have been edited a bit by hand with the Gimp)

Bye
--Lorenzo `paulatz' Paulatto
Trieste


While I'm at it with the banner, here's the LyX icon I've been using for 
Mac. More subdued than Lorenzo's, and with the same font (and color) 
"LyX" as the banner I sent earlier.


Bennett

Re: New lyx icon (fwd)

[Bennett Helm]

On Apr 3, 2007, at 4:06 AM, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:

It would be a pity to slip on that... Could somebody (Bennett?)  
generate a patch so that we can test the proposed new banner and  
icons easily?


I'm not sure how to produce a patch for an image file like  
banner.png; isn't testing it as simple as substituting the file I  
already sent for the one in lib/images/?


I don't know anything about icon production for linux or windows.  
(The LyX application icon for Mac can already be found at development/ 
MacOS/LyX.app/Contents/Resources/ ... along with a similar document  
icon.)


Bennett

Re: New lyx icon (fwd)

[Georg Baum]

Bennett Helm wrote:

> On Apr 3, 2007, at 4:06 AM, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> 
>> It would be a pity to slip on that... Could somebody (Bennett?)
>> generate a patch so that we can test the proposed new banner and
>> icons easily?
> 
> I'm not sure how to produce a patch for an image file like
> banner.png;

It is not possible. patch and diff do only work for text files
(including .xpm - although it is an image the file format is textual).

> isn't testing it as simple as substituting the file I 
> already sent for the one in lib/images/?

Yes.


Georg

Re: New lyx icon (fwd)

[Bennett Helm]

On Apr 2, 2007, at 7:19 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


-- Forwarded message --
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 23:14:56 +0200
From: Lorenzo Paulatto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: gmane.editors.lyx.general
Subject: New lyx icon

Dear lyx users,
during the last years I grew increasingly annoyed by the (in my  
opinion)

horrible lyx default icon.

Finally, during last rainy sunday afternoon I draw a couple new  
icons in
SVG (using inkscape), they aren't great, but I think you may be  
interested.


You can find the pack here
http://people.sissa.it/~paulatto/lyx_logo.tgz. It contains two
flavours: hicolor and (a bit like) crystal.

Note that the smaller size PNGs (22x22, 16x16) aren't just a render of
the SVG but have been edited a bit by hand with the Gimp)

Bye
--
Lorenzo `paulatz' Paulatto
Trieste


While I'm at it with the banner, here's the LyX icon I've been using  
for Mac. More subdued than Lorenzo's, and with the same font (and  
color) LyX as the banner I sent earlier.


Bennett

Re: New lyx icon (fwd)

[Bennett Helm]

On Apr 2, 2007, at 7:19 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


-- Forwarded message --
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 23:14:56 +0200
From: Lorenzo Paulatto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: gmane.editors.lyx.general
Subject: New lyx icon

Dear lyx users,
during the last years I grew increasingly annoyed by the (in my  
opinion)

horrible lyx default icon.

Finally, during last rainy sunday afternoon I draw a couple new  
icons in
SVG (using inkscape), they aren't great, but I think you may be  
interested.


You can find the pack here
. It contains two
flavours: hicolor and (a bit like) crystal.

Note that the smaller size PNGs (22x22, 16x16) aren't just a render of
the SVG but have been edited a bit by hand with the Gimp)

Bye
--
Lorenzo `paulatz' Paulatto
Trieste


While I'm at it with the banner, here's the LyX icon I've been using  
for Mac. More subdued than Lorenzo's, and with the same font (and  
color) "LyX" as the banner I sent earlier.


Bennett

Re: New LyX layout available (with all necessary files attached).

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

 Panayotis == Panayotis Papasotiriou [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Panayotis I have upgraded the ijmpd layout, so that recent changes to
Panayotis the corresponding text class ws-ijmpd.cls are now
Panayotis supported by LyX. I have also created a new LyX layout
Panayotis which supports the IJMPC document class (ws-ijmpc.cls),
Panayotis for submissions to the International Journal of Modern
Panayotis Physics C (http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpc). I have tested
Panayotis the layouts thoroughly, and they work very well. 

Hello PAP,

Thank you very much for the files. I tried to find something wrong in
your submission to justify the time it took to answer, but I could not
find anything :)

The files are now in svn for both 1.4.2svn and 1.5.0svn.

JMarc

Re: New LyX layout available (with all necessary files attached).

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

> "Panayotis" == Panayotis Papasotiriou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Panayotis> I have upgraded the ijmpd layout, so that recent changes to
Panayotis> the corresponding text class "ws-ijmpd.cls" are now
Panayotis> supported by LyX. I have also created a new LyX layout
Panayotis> which supports the "IJMPC" document class (ws-ijmpc.cls),
Panayotis> for submissions to the International Journal of Modern
Panayotis> Physics C (http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpc). I have tested
Panayotis> the layouts thoroughly, and they work very well. 

Hello PAP,

Thank you very much for the files. I tried to find something wrong in
your submission to justify the time it took to answer, but I could not
find anything :)

The files are now in svn for both 1.4.2svn and 1.5.0svn.

JMarc

Re: New LyX with Grammar Checker Prototype (v0.3)

[Juergen Spitzmueller]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Um... do you mean the wiki or the user's list?  (The latter makes sense to
 me for getting testers...)

I mean: Add a decription page on the wiki and announce it on the users list.

Jürgen

Re: New LyX with Grammar Checker Prototype (v0.3)

[christian . ridderstrom]

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:

 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Um... do you mean the wiki or the user's list?  (The latter makes sense to
  me for getting testers...)
 
 I mean: Add a decription page on the wiki and announce it on the users list.

Which he just de... :-)

/C

-- 
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44   http://www.md.kth.se/~chr

Re: New LyX with Grammar Checker Prototype (v0.3)

[christian . ridderstrom]

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   Um... do you mean the wiki or the user's list?  (The latter makes sense to
   me for getting testers...)
  
  I mean: Add a decription page on the wiki and announce it on the users list.
 
 Which he just de... :-)

*sigh*... That should be: Which he just did... :-)

/C

-- 
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44   http://www.md.kth.se/~chr

Re: New "LyX with Grammar Checker" Prototype (v0.3)

[Juergen Spitzmueller]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Um... do you mean the wiki or the user's list?  (The latter makes sense to
> me for getting testers...)

I mean: Add a decription page on the wiki and announce it on the users list.

Jürgen

Re: New "LyX with Grammar Checker" Prototype (v0.3)

[christian . ridderstrom]

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Um... do you mean the wiki or the user's list?  (The latter makes sense to
> > me for getting testers...)
> 
> I mean: Add a decription page on the wiki and announce it on the users list.

Which he just de... :-)

/C

-- 
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44   http://www.md.kth.se/~chr

Re: New "LyX with Grammar Checker" Prototype (v0.3)

[christian . ridderstrom]

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> 
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Um... do you mean the wiki or the user's list?  (The latter makes sense to
> > > me for getting testers...)
> > 
> > I mean: Add a decription page on the wiki and announce it on the users list.
> 
> Which he just de... :-)

*sigh*... That should be: Which he just did... :-)

/C

-- 
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44   http://www.md.kth.se/~chr

Re: New LyX with Grammar Checker Prototype (v0.3)

[Angus Leeming]

John C. McCabe-Dansted wrote:

 I have decided to keep my grammar checker small, mostly just a wrapper
 around ChkTeX and JLanguageTool. Thus my code is likely to remain small
 enough to be included in LyX. However my prototype is easy to distribute
 separately from LyX and does not require any (re)compiling or installing.
 It would probably be best for my code to remain separate for the time
 being.

Way to go, John!

 I have changed this prototype to use the chktex error interface. I may
 need to use IPC; I know LyX-server uses named pipes. Out of TCP sockets,
 unnamed sockets, named pipes and unnamed pipes which are portable across
 the architectures LyX supports?

None of them :(

In an ideal world we would use a platform-independent abstraction to the
architecture-specific APIs. However, at the moment we don't use such a
beast.

Our named pipes code is to be found in src/lyxserver.C and is known to work
on linux (and Mac I believe). It used not to work on the DEC Alpha. It
definitely doesn't work on Windows.

Our sockets code is to be found in src/lyxsocket.C. João abstracted out the
Windows/Unix-specific stuff into the src/support library but, if I
remember correctly, the Windows version is a stub only.

Sorry I don't have time to play with this but I hope the information is
useful.

-- 
Angus

Re: New LyX with Grammar Checker Prototype (v0.3)

[Juergen Spitzmueller]

Angus Leeming wrote:
  I have decided to keep my grammar checker small, mostly just a wrapper
  around ChkTeX and JLanguageTool. Thus my code is likely to remain small
  enough to be included in LyX. However my prototype is easy to distribute
  separately from LyX and does not require any (re)compiling or installing.
  It would probably be best for my code to remain separate for the time
  being.

 Way to go, John!

I have to second that. I have tried it and I think it is promising. At least 
the error messages look a lot more useful than those of LyX's plain ChkTeX 
approach. You should post a message on the wiki, then you's also get more 
testers.

Jürgen

Re: New LyX with Grammar Checker Prototype (v0.3)

[christian . ridderstrom]

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:

 Angus Leeming wrote:
   I have decided to keep my grammar checker small, mostly just a wrapper
   around ChkTeX and JLanguageTool. Thus my code is likely to remain small
   enough to be included in LyX. However my prototype is easy to distribute
   separately from LyX and does not require any (re)compiling or installing.
   It would probably be best for my code to remain separate for the time
   being.
 
  Way to go, John!
 
 I have to second that. I have tried it and I think it is promising. At least 
 the error messages look a lot more useful than those of LyX's plain ChkTeX 
 approach. You should post a message on the wiki, then you's also get more 
 testers.

Um... do you mean the wiki or the user's list?  (The latter makes sense to 
me for getting testers...)

/Christian

-- 
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44   http://www.md.kth.se/~chr

Re: New "LyX with Grammar Checker" Prototype (v0.3)

[Angus Leeming]

John C. McCabe-Dansted wrote:

> I have decided to keep my grammar checker small, mostly just a wrapper
> around ChkTeX and JLanguageTool. Thus my code is likely to remain small
> enough to be included in LyX. However my prototype is easy to distribute
> separately from LyX and does not require any (re)compiling or installing.
> It would probably be best for my code to remain separate for the time
> being.

Way to go, John!

> I have changed this prototype to use the chktex error interface. I may
> need to use IPC; I know LyX-server uses named pipes. Out of TCP sockets,
> unnamed sockets, named pipes and unnamed pipes which are portable across
> the architectures LyX supports?

None of them :(

In an ideal world we would use a platform-independent abstraction to the
architecture-specific APIs. However, at the moment we don't use such a
beast.

Our named pipes code is to be found in src/lyxserver.C and is known to work
on linux (and Mac I believe). It used not to work on the DEC Alpha. It
definitely doesn't work on Windows.

Our sockets code is to be found in src/lyxsocket.C. João abstracted out the
Windows/Unix-specific stuff into the src/support library but, if I
remember correctly, the Windows version is a stub only.

Sorry I don't have time to play with this but I hope the information is
useful.

-- 
Angus

Re: New "LyX with Grammar Checker" Prototype (v0.3)

[Juergen Spitzmueller]

Angus Leeming wrote:
> > I have decided to keep my grammar checker small, mostly just a wrapper
> > around ChkTeX and JLanguageTool. Thus my code is likely to remain small
> > enough to be included in LyX. However my prototype is easy to distribute
> > separately from LyX and does not require any (re)compiling or installing.
> > It would probably be best for my code to remain separate for the time
> > being.
>
> Way to go, John!

I have to second that. I have tried it and I think it is promising. At least 
the error messages look a lot more useful than those of LyX's plain ChkTeX 
approach. You should post a message on the wiki, then you's also get more 
testers.

Jürgen

Re: New "LyX with Grammar Checker" Prototype (v0.3)

[christian . ridderstrom]

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:

> Angus Leeming wrote:
> > > I have decided to keep my grammar checker small, mostly just a wrapper
> > > around ChkTeX and JLanguageTool. Thus my code is likely to remain small
> > > enough to be included in LyX. However my prototype is easy to distribute
> > > separately from LyX and does not require any (re)compiling or installing.
> > > It would probably be best for my code to remain separate for the time
> > > being.
> >
> > Way to go, John!
> 
> I have to second that. I have tried it and I think it is promising. At least 
> the error messages look a lot more useful than those of LyX's plain ChkTeX 
> approach. You should post a message on the wiki, then you's also get more 
> testers.

Um... do you mean the wiki or the user's list?  (The latter makes sense to 
me for getting testers...)

/Christian

-- 
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44   http://www.md.kth.se/~chr

Re: New LyX/Mac Installer

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

 Bennett == Bennett Helm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Would it be a good idea to decide that, when the \server_pipe value
 is set to a relative path, then it should be understood as relative
 to user_dir?

Bennett I'm not sure of the issues here: why would I be likely to put
Bennett the lyxpipe anywhere other than the default location?

_I_ do, because my home directory is under AFS (a distributed file
system) and this does not support pipes. The same would hold for NFS.

JMarc

Re: New LyX/Mac Installer

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

> "Bennett" == Bennett Helm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>> Would it be a good idea to decide that, when the \server_pipe value
>> is set to a relative path, then it should be understood as relative
>> to user_dir?

Bennett> I'm not sure of the issues here: why would I be likely to put
Bennett> the lyxpipe anywhere other than the default location?

_I_ do, because my home directory is under AFS (a distributed file
system) and this does not support pipes. The same would hold for NFS.

JMarc

Re: New LyX/Mac Installer

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

Bennett Helm wrote:

Jean-Marc, can you put this new version on the ftp server?


Done. I have done some renaming for consistency, and the file is now
named LyX-1.3.6-2Mac.dmg

Also, I believe the attached preferences file belongs in 
lyx-1_3_x/development/MacOSX/LyX.app/Contents/Resources/LyX.


Thanks. Note that I had already fixed the serverpipe stuff in cvs.
Had you used this skeleton, this particular problem would not have
surfaced :)

Would it be a good idea to decide that, when the \server_pipe value is
set to a relative path, then it should be understood as relative to
user_dir?

JMarc

Re: New LyX/Mac Installer

[Bennett Helm]

On Jul 20, 2005, at 4:27 PM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:


Bennett Helm wrote:

Jean-Marc, can you put this new version on the ftp server?


Done. I have done some renaming for consistency, and the file is now
named LyX-1.3.6-2Mac.dmg


Thanks. Wiki is updated


Also, I believe the attached preferences file belongs in 
lyx-1_3_x/development/MacOSX/LyX.app/Contents/Resources/LyX.


Thanks. Note that I had already fixed the serverpipe stuff in cvs.
Had you used this skeleton, this particular problem would not have
surfaced :)


Yeah, well, I never was too good with bones. ;P


Would it be a good idea to decide that, when the \server_pipe value is
set to a relative path, then it should be understood as relative to
user_dir?


I'm not sure of the issues here: why would I be likely to put the 
lyxpipe anywhere other than the default location?


Bennett

Re: New LyX/Mac Installer

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

Bennett Helm wrote:

Jean-Marc, can you put this new version on the ftp server?


Done. I have done some renaming for consistency, and the file is now
named LyX-1.3.6-2Mac.dmg

Also, I believe the attached preferences file belongs in 
lyx-1_3_x/development/MacOSX/LyX.app/Contents/Resources/LyX.


Thanks. Note that I had already fixed the serverpipe stuff in cvs.
Had you used this skeleton, this particular problem would not have
surfaced :)

Would it be a good idea to decide that, when the \server_pipe value is
set to a relative path, then it should be understood as relative to
user_dir?

JMarc

Re: New LyX/Mac Installer

[Bennett Helm]

On Jul 20, 2005, at 4:27 PM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:


Bennett Helm wrote:

Jean-Marc, can you put this new version on the ftp server?


Done. I have done some renaming for consistency, and the file is now
named LyX-1.3.6-2Mac.dmg


Thanks. Wiki is updated


Also, I believe the attached preferences file belongs in 
lyx-1_3_x/development/MacOSX/LyX.app/Contents/Resources/LyX.


Thanks. Note that I had already fixed the serverpipe stuff in cvs.
Had you used this skeleton, this particular problem would not have
surfaced :)


Yeah, well, I never was too good with bones. ;P


Would it be a good idea to decide that, when the \server_pipe value is
set to a relative path, then it should be understood as relative to
user_dir?


I'm not sure of the issues here: why would I be likely to put the 
lyxpipe anywhere other than the default location?


Bennett

Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

 Ruurd == Ruurd Reitsma [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Ruurd Hi, Just created another win32 build, based on 1.3.0:

Ruurd http://www.home.zonnet.nl/rareitsma/lyx/

Ruurd This fixes the preferences bug and the table bug. Stripped-down
Ruurd versions of Perl and Python are now included.

Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the
right to distribute this? And what about the Qt license?

Ruurd For those interested, give it a spin!

I am impressed to see that this actually works :)

JMarc

Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0

[Angus Leeming]

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:

 Ruurd == Ruurd Reitsma [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
 Ruurd Hi, Just created another win32 build, based on 1.3.0:
 
 Ruurd http://www.home.zonnet.nl/rareitsma/lyx/
 
 Ruurd This fixes the preferences bug and the table bug. Stripped-down
 Ruurd versions of Perl and Python are now included.
 
 Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the
 right to distribute this? And what about the Qt license?
 
 Ruurd For those interested, give it a spin!
 
 I am impressed to see that this actually works :)

Indeed. I think that we should merge Ruurd's diff into cvs. It's pretty 
trivial and in someways actually improves readability ;-)

-- 
Angus

Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0

[Edwin Leuven]

 Indeed. I think that we should merge Ruurd's diff into cvs. It's pretty
 trivial and in someways actually improves readability ;-)

This would be a very good idea indeed.

Ruurd, maybe you can send your latest diff to the list? (am not sure the one 
on the website is the latest one)

One thing I noticed with this version that it has some glitches with graphics. 
There seems to be a problem with the path conversion ( \ are being replaced 
with _) and things break if I want to scale down images. So for the moment I 
haven't been able to succesfully generate a dvi with a graph.

Apart from this I think that this is very very cool.

GUII and Qt are beginning to pay off as far as I am concerned.

Ed.

Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0

[Ruurd Reitsma]

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the
 right to distribute this? And what about the Qt license?

To be honest, I have no rights to do this. So, please don't sue me ;-)
The licence should be extended in the some fashion as it was extended for
xforms. The question is, who should do this? Matthias Ettrich?
Anyway, it's a bit of a dead end, since Trolltech won't be releasing any new
non-commercial Qt libs. On the other hand, it will probably work for a
while. Qt3 is not that different from Qt2.

 I am impressed to see that this actually works :)

I was quite surprised myself, the first time I got it to compile.

Ruurd

Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0

[Kuba Ober]

  Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the
  right to distribute this? And what about the Qt license?

 To be honest, I have no rights to do this. So, please don't sue me ;-)
 The licence should be extended in the some fashion as it was extended for
 xforms. The question is, who should do this? Matthias Ettrich?
 Anyway, it's a bit of a dead end, since Trolltech won't be releasing any
 new non-commercial Qt libs. On the other hand, it will probably work for a
 while. Qt3 is not that different from Qt2.

  I am impressed to see that this actually works :)

 I was quite surprised myself, the first time I got it to compile.

I can compile it for you using latest commercial Qt3 (enterprise) as long as 
you put proper exclusion in the license.

I have done it several times with other software, and it's perfectly OK 
(legal).

Since lyx compiles on gcc 3.2, it should compile with little problem on bcc5.5 
that I'm using.

Cheers, Kuba Ober

Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0

[Ruurd Reitsma]

 I can compile it for you using latest commercial Qt3 (enterprise) as long
as
 you put proper exclusion in the license.

 I have done it several times with other software, and it's perfectly OK
 (legal).

 Since lyx compiles on gcc 3.2, it should compile with little problem on
bcc5.5
 that I'm using.

Sounds good! Probably, the easiest way then would be to compile Qt with gcc
3.2 mingw, and just use that. That would simplify the whole process.
At the moment, I'm using a wrapper that makes the intel compiler behave like
gcc.

Ruurd

Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0

[Angus Leeming]

Andre Poenitz wrote:

 On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 08:39:21AM -0500, Kuba Ober wrote:
 I can compile it for you using latest commercial Qt3 (enterprise) as long
 as you put proper exclusion in the license.
 
 I have done it several times with other software, and it's perfectly OK
 (legal).
 
 But that would still mean you need approval of all contributors to change
 the licence, wouldn't it?

H. Makes the idea of having separate executables for a lyx daemon and 
lyx frontend, communicating though the lyxserver quite attractive.
-- 
Angus

Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0

[Dr. Richard E. Hawkins]

On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 02:17:43PM +0100, Ruurd Reitsma wrote:
 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
 news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the
  right to distribute this? And what about the Qt license?

 To be honest, I have no rights to do this. So, please don't sue me ;-)
 The licence should be extended in the some fashion as it was extended for
 xforms. The question is, who should do this? Matthias Ettrich?
 Anyway, it's a bit of a dead end, since Trolltech won't be releasing any new
 non-commercial Qt libs. On the other hand, it will probably work for a
 while. Qt3 is not that different from Qt2.

No, the current lyx license just plain isn't correct (as a legal issue).
I wrote the prior qualifications a few years ago, but John replaced that
with what it says now.  The problem is that that's just not what the law
did on the initial release.  

Regardless of what the current license says, xforms does not have a
special status; the entire clause of the putative GPL license was put
aside when Matthias released the code, saying it was GPL but inviting
people to redistribute.   *Any* library can be used in the same manner
as xforms, and we are powerless to object or assert that clause of the
GPL.

But what do I know; I'm just a lawyer who contributed time to get this
right only to see it wiped aside without consulting me.

hawk, esq.

Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0

[Dr. Richard E. Hawkins]

On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:04:09PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
 On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 08:39:21AM -0500, Kuba Ober wrote:
  I can compile it for you using latest commercial Qt3 (enterprise) as long as 
  you put proper exclusion in the license.

  I have done it several times with other software, and it's perfectly OK 
  (legal).

 But that would still mean you need approval of all contributors to change
 the licence, wouldn't it?

No.  Permission was never obtained to switch to the current purported
license.  Lyx has always had a big hole in the GPL that allows this, and
the hole cannot be fixed without permission of all contributors.

hawk, esq.
-- 
Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics/\   ASCII ribbon campaign
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Smeal 178  (814) 375-4700  \ /   against HTML mail
These opinions will not be those of  Xand postings. 
Penn State until it pays my retainer.   / \   

Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0

[Edwin Leuven]

 the hole cannot be fixed without permission of all contributors.

so why not get it and fix the license?

Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0

[Andre Poenitz]

On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:18:02AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
  But that would still mean you need approval of all contributors to change
  the licence, wouldn't it?
 
 No.  Permission was never obtained to switch to the current purported
 license.  Lyx has always had a big hole in the GPL that allows this, and
 the hole cannot be fixed without permission of all contributors.

So what do you think is the current valid license? 

GPL? (probably not)
GPL with may be linked to xforms? 
GPL with may be linked to whatever?
LGPL?
Something entirely different?

Of course I remember your complaints a while ago, but I was not too
interested in licensing issues back than. So I remember you said something,
but not what. Pointer to archive perhaps?

Andre'

-- 
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)

Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0

[Angus Leeming]

Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:

 On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 02:17:43PM +0100, Ruurd Reitsma wrote:
 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
 news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the
  right to distribute this? And what about the Qt license?
 
 To be honest, I have no rights to do this. So, please don't sue me ;-)
 The licence should be extended in the some fashion as it was extended for
 xforms. The question is, who should do this? Matthias Ettrich?
 Anyway, it's a bit of a dead end, since Trolltech won't be releasing any
 new non-commercial Qt libs. On the other hand, it will probably work for
 a while. Qt3 is not that different from Qt2.
 
 No, the current lyx license just plain isn't correct (as a legal issue).
 I wrote the prior qualifications a few years ago, but John replaced that
 with what it says now.  The problem is that that's just not what the law
 did on the initial release.
 
 Regardless of what the current license says, xforms does not have a
 special status; the entire clause of the putative GPL license was put
 aside when Matthias released the code, saying it was GPL but inviting
 people to redistribute.   *Any* library can be used in the same manner
 as xforms, and we are powerless to object or assert that clause of the
 GPL.
 
 But what do I know; I'm just a lawyer who contributed time to get this
 right only to see it wiped aside without consulting me.
 
 hawk, esq.

Dear, Hawk

$ cvs annotate COPYING

tells me that there have been only three changes to COPYING:

27-Sep-99 Lars
01-Aug-01 JMarc
06-Feb-03 myself

I take it that you are talking about a separate file? Could you perhaps post 
the legally binding Licence to the list again because I for one would just 
like things done right.

-- 
Angus

Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0

[Dr. Richard E. Hawkins]

On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:24:03PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
 On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:18:02AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
   But that would still mean you need approval of all contributors to change
   the licence, wouldn't it?

  No.  Permission was never obtained to switch to the current purported
  license.  Lyx has always had a big hole in the GPL that allows this, and
  the hole cannot be fixed without permission of all contributors.

 So what do you think is the current valid license? 

 GPL? (probably not)
 GPL with may be linked to xforms? 
 GPL with may be linked to whatever?

It's very close to this.  I sat down, analyzed what happened, applied
the law, and wrote the qualification to the license to describe what
happened.

I did *not* create the license; neither I nor anyone else (without
consent of all developers ever) could possibly do this.

The short version is that when he announced it as GPL, his actions
contradicted this, and revoked the boilerplate language of the GPL
that were inconsistent with his actions.   Everyone that ever
contributed code contributed under the actual license, not the GPL.
However, as it held itself out as GPL, third parties would be able to
take it as GPL (as the developers woudl be estopped from asserting the
modified license).

 Of course I remember your complaints a while ago, but I was not too
 interested in licensing issues back than. So I remember you said something,
 but not what. Pointer to archive perhaps?

My original writing came in response to the critical bug at debian
(license impurity).  Lars included the paragraphs sometime while I was
at Iowa State, which means sometime between 1996-1999.  I don't know
when the change to the current, legally wrong, claim of license was
made, but I suspect if we checkout from 2000 we'll find it.  (we don't
actually have a searchable mailing list archive from the late 90's, do
we?).

hawk
-- 
Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics/\   ASCII ribbon campaign
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Smeal 178  (814) 375-4700  \ /   against HTML mail
These opinions will not be those of  Xand postings. 
Penn State until it pays my retainer.   / \   

Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0

[Andre Poenitz]

On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:36:50AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
  GPL? (probably not)
  GPL with may be linked to xforms? 
  GPL with may be linked to whatever?
 
 It's very close to this.  I sat down, analyzed what happened, applied
 the law, and wrote the qualification to the license to describe what
 happened.
 
 I did *not* create the license; neither I nor anyone else (without
 consent of all developers ever) could possibly do this.

Sure.

But when the License _is_ may be linked to whatever, and all contributors
contributed under this license as you imply, wouldn't that mean there is
no problem linking it to Qt?

 made, but I suspect if we checkout from 2000 we'll find it.  (we don't
 actually have a searchable mailing list archive from the late 90's, do
 we?).

None that I am aware of, unfortunately...

Andre'

-- 
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)

Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0

[Dr. Richard E. Hawkins]

On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:43:18PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
 On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:36:50AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
   GPL with may be linked to whatever?

  It's very close to this.  I sat down, analyzed what happened, applied
  the law, and wrote the qualification to the license to describe what
  happened.

  I did *not* create the license; neither I nor anyone else (without
  consent of all developers ever) could possibly do this.

 Sure.

 But when the License _is_ may be linked to whatever, and all contributors
 contributed under this license as you imply, wouldn't that mean there is
 no problem linking it to Qt?

Exactly. 

  made, but I suspect if we checkout from 2000 we'll find it.  (we don't
  actually have a searchable mailing list archive from the late 90's, do
  we?).

 None that I am aware of, unfortunately...

Well, cvs should save us all :)

hawk

-- 
Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics/\   ASCII ribbon campaign
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Smeal 178  (814) 375-4700  \ /   against HTML mail
These opinions will not be those of  Xand postings. 
Penn State until it pays my retainer.   / \   

Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0

[Stephan Witt]

Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:

My original writing came in response to the critical bug at debian
(license impurity).  Lars included the paragraphs sometime while I was
at Iowa State, which means sometime between 1996-1999.  I don't know
when the change to the current, legally wrong, claim of license was
made, but I suspect if we checkout from 2000 we'll find it.  (we don't
actually have a searchable mailing list archive from the late 90's, do
we?).
hawk
My personnel mail archive is containing a mail from 10 Oct 1998, sent
from Asger Alstrup Nielsen as follows... (Message-Id:
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Subject: Re: copyright problem)
== start of cite 
 My personal opinion is that this is a simply oversight and no big deal.
 To become legally correct all that is needed would be that you add the
 exemption of linking against xforms to your copyright. Or even better
 that you allow linking lyx against any non-free toolkit.
 That's it.

 Would it be a problem to add this line? After all there are some who
 want to remove lyx from Debian completely because if this minor glitch.
 I won't comment on that here. :-)
I'm ready to change the license accordingly.  Does anybody object to this
change?  After all, the license is technically invalid.
 P.S.: I'm no longer subsrcibed to this list so please CC me on your
 answer.
Done.

 P.P.S: Are there plans for a GTK port? Or how far away are these? I
 heard you are preparing for a 1.0 version so I guess it will take some
 time.  But it would be nice to be able to integrate it into the gnome.
There have been a few voices that want to do a GTK port.  Personally, I'm
game for a GTK-- port, but not really the gnome part of it at first.  So,
yes, there are plans.
However, 1.0.0 will be XForms only, and pre1.0.0 should be out in a couple
of days, and the final maybe in a week, if things go as we'd like ;-)
1.2 will be multi-toolkit, but we are talking about maybe two months,
according to Jean-Marc ;-)  (I think, it's probably 6 months, and if I
have to be realistic, maybe we'll finish it in Italy next year :-)
Greets,

Asger

== end of cite 

Unfortunately it's one of the first mails I have. So it's a pointer to the
correct time only.
Greets,

Stephan

Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0

[Dr. Richard E. Hawkins]

On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:25:07PM +0100, Edwin Leuven wrote:
  the hole cannot be fixed without permission of all contributors.

 so why not get it and fix the license?

Last time around, we figured that contacting them all would be an
impossibility (we're not even sure who they are for some of the early
stuff).

hawk
-- 
Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics/\   ASCII ribbon campaign
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Smeal 178  (814) 375-4700  \ /   against HTML mail
These opinions will not be those of  Xand postings. 
Penn State until it pays my retainer.   / \   

Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0

[Andre Poenitz]

On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 11:16:27AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
 Last time around, we figured that contacting them all would be an
 impossibility (we're not even sure who they are for some of the early
 stuff).

For some of the early stuff it's not that interesting as certain pieces 
don't live anymore. It's non-trivial to figure out who has done what,
though...

Andre'

-- 
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)

Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0

[John Levon]

On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:16:16AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:

 No, the current lyx license just plain isn't correct (as a legal issue).
 I wrote the prior qualifications a few years ago, but John replaced that
 with what it says now.  The problem is that that's just not what the law
 did on the initial release.  

This may well be true, but personally I'd much rather go with the
standard wording decided by the FSF's lawyers (and used in several other
projects) than go it alone.

 Regardless of what the current license says, xforms does not have a
 special status; the entire clause of the putative GPL license was put
 aside when Matthias released the code, saying it was GPL but inviting
 people to redistribute.   *Any* library can be used in the same manner
 as xforms, and we are powerless to object or assert that clause of the
 GPL.

Can you explain why ?

 But what do I know; I'm just a lawyer who contributed time to get this
 right only to see it wiped aside without consulting me.

I did not know that you'd done this when I suggested moving to the FSF
text some time ago, and nobody told me - I'm sorry about this, but you
cannot really blame me for not being aware of it.

regards,
john

Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

> "Ruurd" == Ruurd Reitsma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Ruurd> Hi, Just created another win32 build, based on 1.3.0:

Ruurd> http://www.home.zonnet.nl/rareitsma/lyx/

Ruurd> This fixes the preferences bug and the table bug. Stripped-down
Ruurd> versions of Perl and Python are now included.

Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the
right to distribute this? And what about the Qt license?

Ruurd> For those interested, give it a spin!

I am impressed to see that this actually works :)

JMarc

Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0

[Angus Leeming]

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:

>> "Ruurd" == Ruurd Reitsma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> Ruurd> Hi, Just created another win32 build, based on 1.3.0:
> 
> Ruurd> http://www.home.zonnet.nl/rareitsma/lyx/
> 
> Ruurd> This fixes the preferences bug and the table bug. Stripped-down
> Ruurd> versions of Perl and Python are now included.
> 
> Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the
> right to distribute this? And what about the Qt license?
> 
> Ruurd> For those interested, give it a spin!
> 
> I am impressed to see that this actually works :)

Indeed. I think that we should merge Ruurd's diff into cvs. It's pretty 
trivial and in someways actually improves readability ;-)

-- 
Angus

Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0

[Edwin Leuven]

> Indeed. I think that we should merge Ruurd's diff into cvs. It's pretty
> trivial and in someways actually improves readability ;-)

This would be a very good idea indeed.

Ruurd, maybe you can send your latest diff to the list? (am not sure the one 
on the website is the latest one)

One thing I noticed with this version that it has some glitches with graphics. 
There seems to be a problem with the path conversion ( \ are being replaced 
with _) and things break if I want to scale down images. So for the moment I 
haven't been able to succesfully generate a dvi with a graph.

Apart from this I think that this is very very cool.

GUII and Qt are beginning to pay off as far as I am concerned.

Ed.

Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0

[Ruurd Reitsma]

"Jean-Marc Lasgouttes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the
> right to distribute this? And what about the Qt license?

To be honest, I have no rights to do this. So, please don't sue me ;-)
The licence should be extended in the some fashion as it was extended for
xforms. The question is, who should do this? Matthias Ettrich?
Anyway, it's a bit of a dead end, since Trolltech won't be releasing any new
non-commercial Qt libs. On the other hand, it will probably work for a
while. Qt3 is not that different from Qt2.

> I am impressed to see that this actually works :)

I was quite surprised myself, the first time I got it to compile.

Ruurd

Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0

[Kuba Ober]

> > Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the
> > right to distribute this? And what about the Qt license?
>
> To be honest, I have no rights to do this. So, please don't sue me ;-)
> The licence should be extended in the some fashion as it was extended for
> xforms. The question is, who should do this? Matthias Ettrich?
> Anyway, it's a bit of a dead end, since Trolltech won't be releasing any
> new non-commercial Qt libs. On the other hand, it will probably work for a
> while. Qt3 is not that different from Qt2.
>
> > I am impressed to see that this actually works :)
>
> I was quite surprised myself, the first time I got it to compile.

I can compile it for you using latest commercial Qt3 (enterprise) as long as 
you put proper exclusion in the license.

I have done it several times with other software, and it's perfectly OK 
(legal).

Since lyx compiles on gcc 3.2, it should compile with little problem on bcc5.5 
that I'm using.

Cheers, Kuba Ober

Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0

[Ruurd Reitsma]

> I can compile it for you using latest commercial Qt3 (enterprise) as long
as
> you put proper exclusion in the license.
>
> I have done it several times with other software, and it's perfectly OK
> (legal).
>
> Since lyx compiles on gcc 3.2, it should compile with little problem on
bcc5.5
> that I'm using.

Sounds good! Probably, the easiest way then would be to compile Qt with gcc
3.2 mingw, and just use that. That would simplify the whole process.
At the moment, I'm using a wrapper that makes the intel compiler behave like
gcc.

Ruurd

Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0

[Angus Leeming]

Andre Poenitz wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 08:39:21AM -0500, Kuba Ober wrote:
>> I can compile it for you using latest commercial Qt3 (enterprise) as long
>> as you put proper exclusion in the license.
>> 
>> I have done it several times with other software, and it's perfectly OK
>> (legal).
> 
> But that would still mean you need approval of all contributors to change
> the licence, wouldn't it?

H. Makes the idea of having separate executables for a lyx daemon and 
lyx frontend, communicating though the lyxserver quite attractive.
-- 
Angus

Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0

[Dr. Richard E. Hawkins]

On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 02:17:43PM +0100, Ruurd Reitsma wrote:
> "Jean-Marc Lasgouttes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the
> > right to distribute this? And what about the Qt license?

> To be honest, I have no rights to do this. So, please don't sue me ;-)
> The licence should be extended in the some fashion as it was extended for
> xforms. The question is, who should do this? Matthias Ettrich?
> Anyway, it's a bit of a dead end, since Trolltech won't be releasing any new
> non-commercial Qt libs. On the other hand, it will probably work for a
> while. Qt3 is not that different from Qt2.

No, the current lyx license just plain isn't correct (as a legal issue).
I wrote the prior qualifications a few years ago, but John replaced that
with what it says now.  The problem is that that's just not what the law
did on the initial release.  

Regardless of what the current "license" says, xforms does not have a
special status; the entire clause of the putative GPL license was put
aside when Matthias released the code, saying it was GPL but inviting
people to redistribute.   *Any* library can be used in the same manner
as xforms, and we are powerless to object or assert that clause of the
GPL.

But what do I know; I'm just a lawyer who contributed time to get this
right only to see it wiped aside without consulting me.

hawk, esq.

Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0

[Dr. Richard E. Hawkins]

On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:04:09PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 08:39:21AM -0500, Kuba Ober wrote:
> > I can compile it for you using latest commercial Qt3 (enterprise) as long as 
> > you put proper exclusion in the license.

> > I have done it several times with other software, and it's perfectly OK 
> > (legal).

> But that would still mean you need approval of all contributors to change
> the licence, wouldn't it?

No.  Permission was never obtained to switch to the current purported
license.  Lyx has always had a big hole in the GPL that allows this, and
the hole cannot be fixed without permission of all contributors.

hawk, esq.
-- 
Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics/"\   ASCII ribbon campaign
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Smeal 178  (814) 375-4700  \ /   against HTML mail
These opinions will not be those of  Xand postings. 
Penn State until it pays my retainer.   / \   

Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0

[Edwin Leuven]

> the hole cannot be fixed without permission of all contributors.

so why not get it and fix the license?

Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0

[Andre Poenitz]

On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:18:02AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
> > But that would still mean you need approval of all contributors to change
> > the licence, wouldn't it?
> 
> No.  Permission was never obtained to switch to the current purported
> license.  Lyx has always had a big hole in the GPL that allows this, and
> the hole cannot be fixed without permission of all contributors.

So what do you think is the current valid license? 

GPL? (probably not)
GPL with "may be linked to xforms"? 
GPL with "may be linked to whatever"?
LGPL?
Something entirely different?

Of course I remember your complaints a while ago, but I was not too
interested in licensing issues back than. So I remember you said something,
but not what. Pointer to archive perhaps?

Andre'

-- 
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)

Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0

[Angus Leeming]

Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 02:17:43PM +0100, Ruurd Reitsma wrote:
>> "Jean-Marc Lasgouttes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the
>> > right to distribute this? And what about the Qt license?
> 
>> To be honest, I have no rights to do this. So, please don't sue me ;-)
>> The licence should be extended in the some fashion as it was extended for
>> xforms. The question is, who should do this? Matthias Ettrich?
>> Anyway, it's a bit of a dead end, since Trolltech won't be releasing any
>> new non-commercial Qt libs. On the other hand, it will probably work for
>> a while. Qt3 is not that different from Qt2.
> 
> No, the current lyx license just plain isn't correct (as a legal issue).
> I wrote the prior qualifications a few years ago, but John replaced that
> with what it says now.  The problem is that that's just not what the law
> did on the initial release.
> 
> Regardless of what the current "license" says, xforms does not have a
> special status; the entire clause of the putative GPL license was put
> aside when Matthias released the code, saying it was GPL but inviting
> people to redistribute.   *Any* library can be used in the same manner
> as xforms, and we are powerless to object or assert that clause of the
> GPL.
> 
> But what do I know; I'm just a lawyer who contributed time to get this
> right only to see it wiped aside without consulting me.
> 
> hawk, esq.

Dear, Hawk

$ cvs annotate COPYING

tells me that there have been only three changes to COPYING:

27-Sep-99 Lars
01-Aug-01 JMarc
06-Feb-03 myself

I take it that you are talking about a separate file? Could you perhaps post 
the legally binding Licence to the list again because I for one would just 
like things done right.

-- 
Angus

Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0

[Dr. Richard E. Hawkins]

On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:24:03PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:18:02AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
> > > But that would still mean you need approval of all contributors to change
> > > the licence, wouldn't it?

> > No.  Permission was never obtained to switch to the current purported
> > license.  Lyx has always had a big hole in the GPL that allows this, and
> > the hole cannot be fixed without permission of all contributors.

> So what do you think is the current valid license? 

> GPL? (probably not)
> GPL with "may be linked to xforms"? 
> GPL with "may be linked to whatever"?

It's very close to this.  I sat down, analyzed what happened, applied
the law, and wrote the qualification to the license to describe what
happened.

I did *not* create the license; neither I nor anyone else (without
consent of all developers ever) could possibly do this.

The short version is that when he announced it as GPL, his actions
contradicted this, and revoked the "boilerplate" language of the GPL
that were inconsistent with his actions.   Everyone that ever
contributed code contributed under the actual license, not the GPL.
However, as it held itself out as GPL, third parties would be able to
take it as GPL (as the developers woudl be "estopped" from asserting the
modified license).

> Of course I remember your complaints a while ago, but I was not too
> interested in licensing issues back than. So I remember you said something,
> but not what. Pointer to archive perhaps?

My original writing came in response to the "critical bug" at debian
(license impurity).  Lars included the paragraphs sometime while I was
at Iowa State, which means sometime between 1996-1999.  I don't know
when the change to the current, legally wrong, claim of license was
made, but I suspect if we checkout from 2000 we'll find it.  (we don't
actually have a searchable mailing list archive from the late 90's, do
we?).

hawk
-- 
Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics/"\   ASCII ribbon campaign
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Smeal 178  (814) 375-4700  \ /   against HTML mail
These opinions will not be those of  Xand postings. 
Penn State until it pays my retainer.   / \   

Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0

[Andre Poenitz]

On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:36:50AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
> > GPL? (probably not)
> > GPL with "may be linked to xforms"? 
> > GPL with "may be linked to whatever"?
> 
> It's very close to this.  I sat down, analyzed what happened, applied
> the law, and wrote the qualification to the license to describe what
> happened.
> 
> I did *not* create the license; neither I nor anyone else (without
> consent of all developers ever) could possibly do this.

Sure.

But when the License _is_ "may be linked to whatever", and all contributors
contributed under this license as you imply, wouldn't that mean there is
no problem linking it to Qt?

> made, but I suspect if we checkout from 2000 we'll find it.  (we don't
> actually have a searchable mailing list archive from the late 90's, do
> we?).

None that I am aware of, unfortunately...

Andre'

-- 
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)

Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0

[Dr. Richard E. Hawkins]

On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:43:18PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:36:50AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
> > > GPL with "may be linked to whatever"?

> > It's very close to this.  I sat down, analyzed what happened, applied
> > the law, and wrote the qualification to the license to describe what
> > happened.

> > I did *not* create the license; neither I nor anyone else (without
> > consent of all developers ever) could possibly do this.

> Sure.

> But when the License _is_ "may be linked to whatever", and all contributors
> contributed under this license as you imply, wouldn't that mean there is
> no problem linking it to Qt?

Exactly. 

> > made, but I suspect if we checkout from 2000 we'll find it.  (we don't
> > actually have a searchable mailing list archive from the late 90's, do
> > we?).

> None that I am aware of, unfortunately...

Well, cvs should save us all :)

hawk

-- 
Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics/"\   ASCII ribbon campaign
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Smeal 178  (814) 375-4700  \ /   against HTML mail
These opinions will not be those of  Xand postings. 
Penn State until it pays my retainer.   / \   

Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0

[Stephan Witt]

Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:

My original writing came in response to the "critical bug" at debian
(license impurity).  Lars included the paragraphs sometime while I was
at Iowa State, which means sometime between 1996-1999.  I don't know
when the change to the current, legally wrong, claim of license was
made, but I suspect if we checkout from 2000 we'll find it.  (we don't
actually have a searchable mailing list archive from the late 90's, do
we?).
hawk
My personnel mail archive is containing a mail from 10 Oct 1998, sent
from Asger Alstrup Nielsen as follows... (Message-Id:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Subject: Re: copyright problem)
== start of cite 
> My personal opinion is that this is a simply oversight and no big deal.
> To become legally correct all that is needed would be that you add the
> exemption of linking against xforms to your copyright. Or even better
> that you allow linking lyx against any non-free toolkit.
> That's it.
>
> Would it be a problem to add this line? After all there are some who
> want to remove lyx from Debian completely because if this minor glitch.
> I won't comment on that here. :-)
I'm ready to change the license accordingly.  Does anybody object to this
change?  After all, the license is technically invalid.
> P.S.: I'm no longer subsrcibed to this list so please CC me on your
> answer.
Done.

> P.P.S: Are there plans for a GTK port? Or how far away are these? I
> heard you are preparing for a 1.0 version so I guess it will take some
> time.  But it would be nice to be able to integrate it into the gnome.
There have been a few voices that want to do a GTK port.  Personally, I'm
game for a GTK-- port, but not really the gnome part of it at first.  So,
yes, there are plans.
However, 1.0.0 will be XForms only, and pre1.0.0 should be out in a couple
of days, and the final maybe in a week, if things go as we'd like ;-)
1.2 will be multi-toolkit, but we are talking about maybe two months,
according to Jean-Marc ;-)  (I think, it's probably 6 months, and if I
have to be realistic, maybe we'll finish it in Italy next year :-)
Greets,

Asger

== end of cite 

Unfortunately it's one of the first mails I have. So it's a pointer to the
correct time only.
Greets,

Stephan