Re: Announce: PilBox - Building Mobile Apps in PicoLisp

[O.Hamann]

.. after having received tons of posts titled 'future', some of them 
sounding like 'do not know what future will bring' ...


.. and now: baam! - once again Alex fetched sth out of the hat (and 
head of course :-)  ) - in variation to the german saying 'aus dem Hut 
zaubern'


Kindly excited (but very happy with the termux solution at the moment),

Olaf


On 12.03.2017 17:10, Alexander Burger wrote:

Hi all,

it is now possible to build Android Apps completely in PicoLisp!


I have prepared an environment which lets you run normal PicoLisp (Web-)
applications on Android devices, without the need to write Java code. I'm using
it myself in a project for distributed databases currently.

It requires an Android Studio SDK to build, but the resulting APKs ("Android
Packages") run on any Arm64 device. The provided code itself is application
independent. A simple demo and a template skeleton for your own experiments is
included.


I will not write a full-fledged Wiki article yet, and better wait for some
feedback.

An Adroid SDK project is a monster. Here, on my installation, the "PilBox/"
folder contains more than ten thousand files!

I don't know which files exactly I have to export, and what is needed on your
side to import it into your SDK. I suspect you first need to import it somehow
in the IDE before you can use the command line build tools.

The tarball at

https://software-lab.de/PilBox.tgz

contains a README, trying to explain the details. If anyone dares to try it out,
please let me know if anything is missing! Together we may be able to describe
the procedures more clearly, extend the README, and perhaps provide some Wiki
article(s).

♪♫ Alex


--
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe

Re: Announce: PilBox - Building Mobile Apps in PicoLisp

[Raman Gopalan]

Dear Alex, dear PicoLisp community,

> it is now possible to build Android Apps completely in PicoLisp!

Wow! This is really great Alex! Thank you! Fantastic news.

R

Re: Unclear licensing

[Alexander Burger]

Hi Christopher,

> Nevertheless, I would strongly recommend *at least* putting licensing
> information on the JavaScript files, even if only using the one-liner
> approach. Since the JavaScript will usually be served through a Web
> server, it will be impossible for Web users to tell that it is freely
> licensed code. Code with unclear licensing is no better than proprietary
> code for practical purposes.

Thanks for your concerns! But I still do not see where the problem is. I don't
care what others do with the code. It is free!

♪♫ Alex
-- 
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe

Re: Unclear licensing

[Christopher Howard]

Right. Admittedly, that is not *so* much of a concern when you are
looking at code that you have just unpackaged directly from the
release... you can infer that the license in COPYING applies to every
unlabeled file in the release. (Though, that leaves open potential for
confusion and uncertainty.) The JavaScript is a special case because
90%+ of the people who will see/use the JavaScript will receive it from
a Web server and, if they inspect the source of the JavaScript, will
only see "Copyright so and so" and will have to assume that it is
proprietary.

If I ever do a Picolisp Web app I will certainly add the license headers
myself if I must. I'm just saying that if *you* guys care about *your*
users, you'll want to at least put the license headers on the JavaScript
files. The logical place to do that would be once in the official
release, rather than having ever developer need to do it independently.

I would even go a bit further and suggest making the JavaScript LibreJS
compatible:

https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/
https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/manual/librejs.html#JavaScript-Web-Labels

As mentioned, I'm willing to help out with this if desired.

On 03/13/2017 10:09 AM, Bruno Franco wrote:
> I think that what Christopher means is that adding a licence makes the
> developer's wishes clear. When you put a permissible licence its obvious
> you don't care what people do with the code, but if there's no licence
> at all it *could* mean you don't care, or it *could* mean you do care
> but just forgot to say it. In the case with no licence, there will be
> people who would like to use the code however they want, but stop
> because they're not sure the developer would accept it. This is not a
> problem with anyone in this community, who knows the code is free to use
> for anyone. It is more for people who find the code without knowing
> anything about the developer.
> 
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Joh-Tob Schäg  > wrote:
> 
> Hi Christopher,
> 
> You can interpret the:
> 
> Thanks for your concerns! But I still do not see where the
> problem is. I don't
> care what others do with the code. It is free!
> 
> As make a ~fork~ of it which adds license headers you seem to
> desperately want.
> 
> 2017-03-13 7:57 GMT+01:00 Alexander Burger  >:
> 
> Hi Christopher,
> 
> > Nevertheless, I would strongly recommend *at least* putting 
> licensing
> > information on the JavaScript files, even if only using the 
> one-liner
> > approach. Since the JavaScript will usually be served through a Web
> > server, it will be impossible for Web users to tell that it is 
> freely
> > licensed code. Code with unclear licensing is no better than 
> proprietary
> > code for practical purposes.
> 
> Thanks for your concerns! But I still do not see where the
> problem is. I don't
> care what others do with the code. It is free!
> 
> ♪♫ Alex
> --
> UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de
> ?subject=Unsubscribe
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Christopher Howard, Computer Assistant
Alaska Satellite Internet
3239 La Ree Way, Fairbanks, AK 99709
907-451-0088 or 888-396-5623 (toll free)
fax: 888-260-3584
mailto:christop...@alaskasi.com
http://www.alaskasatelliteinternet.com
-- 
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe

Re: Unclear licensing

[Joh-Tob Schäg]

*Actions over Words:*

Step 1. Patch the latest download so it contains the license information
locally.
Step 2.?
Step 3. Profit!







Hint: ? is finding a new place to host and go to 1.


2017-03-13 19:09 GMT+01:00 Bruno Franco :

> I think that what Christopher means is that adding a licence makes the
> developer's wishes clear. When you put a permissible licence its obvious
> you don't care what people do with the code, but if there's no licence at
> all it *could* mean you don't care, or it *could* mean you do care but
> just forgot to say it. In the case with no licence, there will be people
> who would like to use the code however they want, but stop because they're
> not sure the developer would accept it. This is not a problem with anyone
> in this community, who knows the code is free to use for anyone. It is more
> for people who find the code without knowing anything about the developer

Re: Unclear licensing

[Bruno Franco]

I think that what Christopher means is that adding a licence makes the
developer's wishes clear. When you put a permissible licence its obvious
you don't care what people do with the code, but if there's no licence at
all it *could* mean you don't care, or it *could* mean you do care but just
forgot to say it. In the case with no licence, there will be people who
would like to use the code however they want, but stop because they're not
sure the developer would accept it. This is not a problem with anyone in
this community, who knows the code is free to use for anyone. It is more
for people who find the code without knowing anything about the developer.

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Joh-Tob Schäg  wrote:

> Hi Christopher,
>
> You can interpret the:
>
>> Thanks for your concerns! But I still do not see where the problem is. I
>> don't
>> care what others do with the code. It is free!
>
> As make a ~fork~ of it which adds license headers you seem to desperately
> want.
>
> 2017-03-13 7:57 GMT+01:00 Alexander Burger :
>
>> Hi Christopher,
>>
>> > Nevertheless, I would strongly recommend *at least* putting licensing
>> > information on the JavaScript files, even if only using the one-liner
>> > approach. Since the JavaScript will usually be served through a Web
>> > server, it will be impossible for Web users to tell that it is freely
>> > licensed code. Code with unclear licensing is no better than proprietary
>> > code for practical purposes.
>>
>> Thanks for your concerns! But I still do not see where the problem is. I
>> don't
>> care what others do with the code. It is free!
>>
>> ♪♫ Alex
>> --
>> UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
>>
>
>