On 10/04/2006, at 2:50, ajones wrote: > My suggestion (remember, I am no expert) is to keep any modifications > you make to the tinyMCE egg, or to tinyMCE itself, in the code for > that > egg. Due to the flexible nature of both python and javascript it is > very easy and tempting to work around any problems you encounter with > your own code. (redefining a function not exposed in the tinyMCE > javascript API, for instance) DO NOT DO THIS. If you keep all of your > changes inside the package containing tinyMCE, and distribute that > properly, you should be safe as far as I can tell.
Good, then I think I did it the correct way, the package is released as LGPL as it's stated in the LICENSE file. Fortunately, Kevin (well... and all of us ;) has made a great job in designing the widget API and PJE's setuptools is just a dream come true. Widgets and eggs make this packaging process VERY easy... (those of you still struggling with the inexistent docs should take my word for it... for the moment you'll have to do what the rest of us have done... UTSL: "The definitive guide to widgets" ;) Hint to anyone reading this: As I've said, docs are not that great at the moment regarding widgets. The current widget API and setuptools makes packaging existing javascript libraries into widgets a breeze. (Please don't hesitate to ask in the list for any guidance, I'd gladly help out anyone trying it out and even package-on-demand existing JS libraries If I can spare some time, I find it useful and feel like it. Besides that, this example widgets make great docs...). Even if it cannot make it into TG core for license issues, *all* of use will benefit if we can go to the Cogbin and browse for any widget we might need for a project we're working on. Share your widgets people! :) It's the whole "don't-reinvent-the-wheel" issue, and the difference is taking 5mins to setup a rich text editor than to take 1 hour to write and test it (well, and another to figure out how properly package it and upload it to the cheeseshop, but that's a lifetime investment) > <rant py:if="YouCare is True or YouHaveLotsOfTime is True"> > This, to me, is why I hate the GPL. I want to spend my time > programming, not worrying about licenses that, by wilfull malice, or > more likely the nature of the subjects they discuss, are almost > incomprehensible, even to someone that is capable of generating and > understanding verbose speech nearly at will. I understand that the > intent is to guarantee freedom to modify code, to me it holds > programmers hostage, and reduces them to the servant of some ineffable > 'user'. > > In my opinion the success of projects based on the BSD and MIT style > license have shown that the GPL is needlessly seeking to solve a > problem that is better solved by network effects. I can think of > almost > no instances where a company contributed specific fixes to a GPL > project to address issues important to them when that company was not > also helping that project in some general fashion. This, to me, > gives a > posteriori proof that the argument that BSD/MIT licenses allowing a > company to take from the community without contributing their code > modifications does not make them lesser entities than the GPL. The GPL > ensures that those modifications are simply not made, because the > software in question is not used to that purpose. > > If you've gotten this far, I am impressed, I get really wordy when > I am > angry. In summary: The GPL sucks for any programmer trying to make > money off free software, it does not allow us to use a free package to > create a commercial product without serious consideration of the > licenses implications. It sucks for end users because it discourages > the contribution of specific problem fixes made by corporations as it > requires ALL of the code involved to be opened up, indeed it > discourages the modification of code for commercial purposes by large > corporations at all. It has a highly skewed concept of freedom > that, to > me, amounts to the freedom to give your code away and have no options > to get anything from it. > > All that said, I am typing this on a system that is the result of > multiple GPL projects. I depend on GPL software, but I despise being > forced to worry about this issue for any projects I would like to make > money on. > > I am sorry, Alberto, if this rant detracts from discussion of or > interest in your project. It shouldn't. I am really happy to see this, > and hope it will prove to be as useful as I think it will. > Sometimes we > just have to get something off our chest though. > </rant> No problem.. :) however, if this thread derives into this discussion it would be nice if it splitted into another, at least for "categorization" purposes... I more or less agree with this (more 'more' than less). However, there are cases when the community has benefited form the GPL too (after some struggle with the company). Lynksys' WRT54G comes to mind (god! How I love this thing!). I'm not sure Lynksys would have contributed back it's modified Linux kernel & drivers if they weren't forced by the license... Regards, Alberto --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears Trunk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears-trunk -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
