Hi,
I've started using gEDA, and I love it, but I hate firing up my Ubuntu
VM every 5 minutes to tweak stuff.
So I compiled gEDA under Cygwin (after much dependency hell).
Afterwards I thought: What if I could make this a portable package?
So, with absolutely no warranty or support
Hi,
I've started using gEDA, and I love it, but I hate firing up my Ubuntu
VM every 5 minutes to tweak stuff.
So I compiled gEDA under Cygwin (after much dependency hell).
Afterwards I thought: What if I could make this a portable package?
So, with absolutely no warranty or support
On 09/19/2010 11:34 AM, Chris Malton wrote:
Unzip it wherever you want, and run the launcher (needs .NET framework - eurgh,
but
most Windows people should have it by now).
I was thinking of installing it on a windows computer, but it has Win2K. My
wife
has no desire to upgrade windows.
Are you joking?
On 19 Sep 2010 09:58, John Griessen [1]j...@ecosensory.com wrote:
On 09/19/2010 11:34 AM, Chris Malton wrote:
Unzip it wherever you want, and run the launcher (needs .NET
framework - eurgh, but
most Windows people should have it by now).
I was
On 09/19/2010 11:56 AM, John Griessen wrote:
Is the .NET framework something you can add
to old versions of windows?
I found this on a forum archive. Not certain it's correct, but...
The Microsoft .Net Framework version 3.5 does not contain support for Windows 2000. It appears that Microsoft
Yes, and you are still running lunix from 1999, right?
I'm sorry but anyone complaining about .net in 2010 is just asking to
be ridiculed.
On 19 Sep 2010 10:04, John Griessen [1]j...@ecosensory.com wrote:
On 09/19/2010 11:56 AM, John Griessen wrote:
Is the .NET framework
Hi John,
It needs .Net 2.0.
From the MS website: Supported Operating Systems:Windows 2000 Service
Pack 3;Windows 98;Windows 98 Second Edition;Windows ME;Windows Server
2003;Windows XP Service Pack 2
Looks like you're OK there.
Chris
On 19/09/2010 18:04, John Griessen wrote:
On 9/19/10 1:06 PM, timecop wrote:
Yes, and you are still running lunix from 1999, right?
I'm sorry but anyone complaining about .net in 2010 is just asking to
be ridiculed.
Anyone USING .net in 2010 is asking to be ridiculed.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte,
On 09/19/2010 12:12 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
Anyone USING .net in 2010 is asking to be ridiculed.
Are there other ways than .NET to help out a build on windows?
(I don't see messages from timecop, since he's in my kill file)
What's the status of Carlos Nieve's build method?
John
The only other way I can think of (that doesn't introduce dependencies)
involves a collection of Batch files, none of which are particularly
nice
Given that .NET gets installed as a Windows Update. I figured it was
probably safe. Especially given since the app only requires version
On Sep 19, 2010, at 10:04 AM, John Griessen wrote:
So, by using .NET you put users of your compilation in an upgrade treadmill
to the benefit of Microsoft.
Nonsense.
This version gives the ability to run gEDA to users of certain Windows versions
who couldn't use it before. And when
The only other way I can think of (that doesn't introduce dependencies)
involves a collection of Batch files, none of which are particularly
nice
Cesar Struass put together a build system for building the binaries
for Win32, which works really well. It is fairly easy to cross compile
the
Here is the message with the installer script,
http://archives.seul.org/geda/user/Jan-2010/msg00168.html
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
On 19/9/2010 13:34, Chris Malton wrote:
Downloads from http://portablegaf.cmalton.me.uk
Please be sure you comply with clause 3 of GPL v2, which ensures anyone
can get the exact sources for the software you distribute. In your case,
this includes the GPL'd parts of gEDA and Cygwin you
Are you trying to tell me that I need to upload the unmodified
sources for gEDA, pcb, Cygwin and co?
Did you read the license terms for all those packages before
distributing binaries built from them?
For gEDA and PCB, that's exactly what you have to do.
For Cygwin, IIRC there's an
On Sep 19, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Chris Malton wrote:
Are you trying to tell me that I need to upload the unmodified sources for
gEDA, pcb, Cygwin and co?
Not quite; be sure that *anyone can get* the exact sources -- be sure to
identify and link to the sources that you used, and upload any
Not quite; be sure that *anyone can get* the exact sources -- be
sure to identify and link to the sources that you used,
GPL version 2 does not permit that.
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of
On Sep 19, 2010, at 12:11 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
Are you trying to tell me that I need to upload the unmodified
sources for gEDA, pcb, Cygwin and co?
Did you read the license terms for all those packages before
distributing binaries built from them?
For gEDA and PCB, that's exactly
And this, friends, is why people just say fuckit and stop contributing.
Enjoy your GPL circlejerk.
On 19 Sep 2010 12:18, DJ Delorie [1...@delorie.com wrote:
Not quite; be sure that *anyone can get* the exact sources -- be
sure to identify and link to the sources that you
However, you *can* also simply link to your sources, provided that
you also accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least
three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the
And this, friends, is why people just say fuckit and stop
contributing. Enjoy your GPL circlejerk.
Your troll-fu is weak.
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
On Sep 19, 2010, at 12:25 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
However, you *can* also simply link to your sources, provided that
you also accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least
three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source
So... a copy of the GPL on the web is not legally binding?
The GNU General Public License is a one-sided grant of rights, not a
contract, it is *NOT* legally binding and need not be.
However, if you *choose* to not accept its terms, the US Copyright
Laws take full effect, and your right to
On 09/19/2010 01:33 PM, Windell H. Oskay wrote:
Nothing. Disregard the haters. You've made a genuine and useful contribution
to the gEDA ecosystem-- Nice work, and thank you!
Haters? I was just asking about how universal or not .NET was, and got an
answer that 2.0 .NET
does not create
On Sep 19, 2010, at 12:44 PM, John Griessen wrote:
On 09/19/2010 01:33 PM, Windell H. Oskay wrote:
Nothing. Disregard the haters. You've made a genuine and useful
contribution to the gEDA ecosystem-- Nice work, and thank you!
Haters? I was just asking about how universal or not .NET
Your troll-fu is weak.
Not trolling at all. I've been discussing the GNU GPL officially,
publically, and otherwise for the last 20 years or so - as part of
DJGPP and Cygwin, as a Cygnus/Red Hat employee, and now as part of
gEDA/PCB. Some of the wording in COPYINGv2 exists because of my
On 09/19/2010 02:42 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
So... a copy of the GPL on the web is not legally binding?
The GNU General Public License is a one-sided grant of rights, not a
contract, it is *NOT* legally binding and need not be.
However, if you *choose* to not accept its terms, the US Copyright
On Sep 19, 2010, at 12:42 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
So... a copy of the GPL on the web is not legally binding?
The GNU General Public License is a one-sided grant of rights, not a
contract, it is *NOT* legally binding and need not be.
However, if you *choose* to not accept its terms, the US
On 09/19/2010 02:47 PM, Windell H. Oskay wrote:
I should have said naysayers or something else less negative. You're absolutely right that we should be able to discuss this
kind of thing here.
Thanks,
Yes, I can't imagine figuring out all the paths we can go on in publishing free
hardware
Can you actually cite any example from GNU or elsewhere, saying that
a written offer to include source code is not sufficient if it's
online?
The internet is not the only thing in the world. Try asking a lawyer
for advice instead. I can only give you my opinion based on years of
experience
The GPL is easy to comply with, but it's not always obvious how that's
done.
Just so I'm clear myself here, if I cross compile using Cygwin or MinW32
as far as GPL2 section 3 is concerned: However, as a special
exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that
is normally
The key problem with Cygwin isn't cygwin1.dll, actually. A small bit
of the Cygwin library gets linked statically into every Cygwin
application, and that code is GPL. At least, it was last time I
checked. However, Cygwin has an exception for distributing binaries
of open-source programs
On 19/9/2010 16:08, Chris Malton wrote:
Are you trying to tell me that I need to upload the unmodified sources
for gEDA, pcb, Cygwin and co?
It is the safest way, yes. Consider if any of the home sites went
offline, or changed the source page URL. Then you would no longer have
permission to
On 19/09/2010 21:21, Cesar Strauss wrote:
On 19/9/2010 16:08, Chris Malton wrote:
Are you trying to tell me that I need to upload the unmodified sources
for gEDA, pcb, Cygwin and co?
It is the safest way, yes. Consider if any of the home sites went
offline, or changed the source page URL.
The next question, I suppose is, what if I didn't compile Cygwin,
or the other libraries it's link against?, but that belongs
somewhere else.
Actually, it's a good question here too, because it relates. If you
offer binaries on a web site along with sources, and the recipient
*chooses*
On Sep 19, 2010, at 12:49 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
Your troll-fu is weak.
Not trolling at all. I've been discussing the GNU GPL officially,
publically, and otherwise for the last 20 years or so - as part of
DJGPP and Cygwin, as a Cygnus/Red Hat employee, and now as part of
gEDA/PCB. Some
When the FSF checks for violations ( http://www.fsf.org/licensing/compliance
), they check the pages where software is distributed, and they also check
the surrounding web pages (to make sure that the source isn't distributed
elsewhere on the site, and there's no written offer). Why would
On Sep 19, 2010, at 1:49 PM, Bob Paddock wrote:
If you go the written offer route there are several ways that can make
you go broke.
A million people make the request. Same person makes the request every day
etc.
Interesting thought. I'd guess that this is why the license allows you to
But citation still needed, or it *is* trolling.
No citation is needed - the GPL is a legal document. Bring it to a
lawyer if you want a legal opinion. You should never rely on the
Internet for legal advice. All we can give you are opinions. Even a
*lawyer* on the Internet can only give
Interesting thought. I'd guess that this is why the license allows
you to charge for source code mailings and cover your costs.
Even so, it's a denial of service attack if they can't hire enough
employees to service the requests.
___
geda-user
DJ Delorie wrote:
If you can figure out a secure legally binding DATED way to make that
offer online, and not get screwed by someone who edited the file to
change the date ten years down the line, and have it all hold up in
court, go for it
appart from the problems of millions of people taking
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 04:20:54 +0900
timecop time...@gmail.com wrote:
And this, friends, is why people just say fuckit and stop contributing.
Enjoy your GPL circlejerk.
THIS is why so many of us on the open source side of the fence get so upset at
folks on the closed source side.
People stop
On Sep 19, 2010, at 2:18 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
No citation is needed - the GPL is a legal document. Bring it to a
lawyer if you want a legal opinion. You should never rely on the
Internet for legal advice. All we can give you are opinions. Even a
*lawyer* on the Internet can only give
43 matches
Mail list logo
