[Gtk-sharp-list] Dumb question: Gtk# versions, Licensing
monoman at gmail.com
Sun Jul 15 00:02:50 EDT 2007
Won't comment on the legal bits, but just pinpoint that GTK+ isn't
Linuxy C++, It's object-organized pure C code.
On 7/14/07, Aaron Oxford <aaron at hardwarehookups.com.au> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I'm having problems with users who seem to either have other versions
> of Gtk# or Gtk+ installed (under Windows), or for whom the installer
> from Novell is malfunctioning. As a result my app can't find its
> dependencies and won't run. This is generating one or two bug reports
> a week - about 10 times the usual traffic. :-)
> I'm relatively new to open source development. I've always worked in
> environments where you buy the things you need and do whatever you
> like with them within the confines of the office. Hence, I see
> several options for Gtk# integration but I can't seem to find a solid
> statement about what is allowed and what is not. If anyone could add
> options or information to the list below or point me towards a
> readable source of info on this, I'd be very grateful.
> My options seem to be (in order of best integration):
> 1 - Somehow add all of Gtk# and Gtk+ to my own project, compile them
> directly into it and put up with maintaining it (ie downloading and
> remodifying new versions as they are released by you guys). This
> would probably involve me having to get Gtk+ to compile as well
> (Linuxy C++, argh!), so I won't be doing this unless it turns out to
> be much easier than it sounds. On the bright side, it should be OK
> provided I ship all that source in my code releases.
> 2 - Rip all necessary DLLs from the Gtk# installer (that would
> include Gtk+ DLLs) from Novell and put them in my bin directory upon
> installation. This is the most attractive option, and should be the
> most reliable option. This would be a pretty flagrant violation of
> copyright (or something) though, wouldn't it?
> 3 - Compile my own DLLs using the Gtk# source code and put them in
> the installer. My understanding is that this would be allowed,
> provided the source for 'my' Gtk# DLLs was available with the rest of
> the code. For the same reasons as #1, this is not an attractive
> option. I could possibly rely on a Gtk+ installer but I think that's
> been part of the problem too, or at the very least has the potential
> to land me in exactly the same situation again later.
> 4 - Keep using Novell's installer, but integrated into mine. This has
> been giving me headaches but only with a few users. I just hate the
> fact that my software may be directly incompatible with other
> software (like Pidgin) because I'm using Gtk#. Installer integration
> would ensure that only users with broken installs had problems, but
> could actually break other people's software!
> As you can see, I seem to be stuck between options that involve me
> appropriating and working with all of Gtk#'s source code, doing
> things I'm not sure are legal (let alone moral), or creating an
> installer that breaks other software. :-(
> I apologise if everyone is reading this and thinking "well, duh", but
> as I said I'm new to this and try as I might I can't seem to find a
> clear statement about each of these alternatives or what the hell to
> do about it all, especially as a chump end user of Gtk# on Windows
> who can't compile it for himself. :-)
> Thanks in advance for any (more) help you guys can give me,
> Aaron Oxford - aaron+hardwarehookups .com .au
> Director, Innovative Computer Solutions (Aust) Pty. Ltd.
> 49 Maitland Rd, Mayfield, NSW 2304 Australia
> Developer, SourceForge project VioLet Composer
> Gtk-sharp-list maillist - Gtk-sharp-list at lists.ximian.com
Rafael "Monoman" Teixeira
"I myself am made entirely of flaws, stitched together with good intentions."
More information about the Gtk-sharp-list