Re: jallib central repository

> I have never used SVN or CVS, but I understand it is almost
> indispensable, even to use locally/privately. I'm prepared to learn...

Yes, version control systems are just mandatory when it comes to
produce code (and even for other things). Going back, merging,
branching, logging, etc... this is where there's the whole project
history.

Once the repository is configured, learning svn (or cvs, but much
harder) is just about checkout/update/commit files. There are plenty
tutorials around there, I can search for a nice one if you want. For
window users (or GUI addict) there's TortoiseSVN
(http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/), a nice interface completely integrated.

> A few years back JAL compiler source was brought to
> Sourceforge.net. Would that be a good place?

I tried Sourceforge a few years ago, and recently Google Code. Holding
a project in SF is much more complicated than in GC. SF servers are
often overloaded, web interface is too "heavy", forums, issues etc...
are barely usable. For instance, it's been more than a month
statistics are disabled, and SF team seems not to be able to repair
them before the end of August... In GC, you just open a project and
that's it, you can start working with it. GC hosting mailing list is
quite helpful too.

That's my point of view, I'm really not a big fan of SF, but if you,
guys, want to go with SF, I'm ok

> I know nothing about licenses.....

Yeah, that's an important point ! From what I've observed, BSD and GPL
licences are mostly used by jal coder. BSD allows commercial
integration, far easier than with GPL. For instance, if you use a
GPL'ed jal library with your own proprietary code, it may be
contaminated. This is why LGPL license exists. None of this is a
problem using BSD (or MIT) license.

Back to the repos, every file should (must) contain author/copyright
and license terms before allowing them to be committed, so everyone
knows what is used... provided multiple licenses are allowed within a
same project (I'm searching...).

Cheers,

Seb
--
Sébastien LELONG
sebastien.lelong[at]sirloon.net
http://www.sirloon.net
http://sirbot.org

Messages in this topic (8) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

.

On 10 Jul 2008, at 11:07 , Seb wrote:

>> I have never used SVN or CVS, but I understand it is almost
>> indispensable, even to use locally/privately. I'm prepared to
>>; learn...
>
>; Yes, version control systems are just mandatory when it comes to
> produce code (and even for other things). Going back, merging,
> branching, logging, etc... this is where there's the whole project
> history.

I've used both CVS and SVN, I like the latter.

>> A few years back JAL compiler source was brought to
>> Sourceforge.net. Would that be a good place?
>
> I tried Sourceforge a few years ago, and recently Google Code. Holding
> a project in SF is much more complicated than in GC. SF servers are
> often overloaded, web interface is too "heavy", forums, issues etc...
> are barely usable. For instance, it's been more than a month
> statistics are disabled, and SF team seems not to be able to repair
> them before the end of August... In GC, you just open a project and
> that's it, you can start working with it. GC hosting mailing list is
> quite helpful too.

Then GC it is. I'm not too fond of SF either.

>> I know nothing about licenses.....
>
> Yeah, that's an important point ! From what I've observed, BSD and GPL
> licences are mostly used by jal coder. BSD allows commercial
> integration, far easier than with GPL. For instance, if you use a
> GPL'ed jal library with your own proprietary code, it may be
> contaminated. This is why LGPL license exists. None of this is a
> problem using BSD (or MIT) license.

I like the zlib/PNG licence, which is:

> Permission is hereby granted to use, copy, modify, and distribute this
>; source code, or portions hereof, for any purpose, without fee, subject
> to the following restrictions:
>
> 1. The origin of this source code must not be misrepresented.
>;
> 2. Altered versions must be plainly marked as such and must not
> be misrepresented as being the original source.
>
> 3. This Copyright notice may not be removed or altered from any
> source or altered source distribution.

So the origin is traceable, and no contamination. Yes, it can be used
commercially.

Better have the same licence for everything, must developers (even
me) do not really care about them.

---
ir EE van Andel eur%40fiwihex.nl">eurfiwihex.nl http://www.fiwihex.nl
Fiwihex B.V. Wierdensestraat 74, NL7604BK Almelo, Netherlands
tel+;31-546-491106 fax+31-546-491107

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Messages in this topic (10) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

.

> I like the zlib/PNG licence, which is:
>
> > Permission is hereby granted to use, copy, modify, and distribute this
>; > source code, or portions hereof, for any purpose, without fee, subject
> > to the following restrictions:
> >
>; > 1. The origin of this source code must not be misrepresented.
>; >
>; > 2. Altered versions must be plainly marked as such and must not
> > be misrepresented as being the original source.
> >
>; > 3. This Copyright notice may not be removed or altered from any
> > source or altered source distribution.
>
> So the origin is traceable, and no contamination. Yes, it can be used
>; commercially.
>
> Better have the same licence for everything, must developers (even
> me) do not really care about them.

- I am totally in favour of 'one license'!
- zlib/PNG is recognised by http://www.opensource.org
- the zlib/PNG license does not have the 'disclaimer' block one often
sees, is that a poblem?
- it is not immediately clear to me whether the zlib/PNG allows
compilation/linking, and what license applies to the executable?

--

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu

Messages in this topic (11) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

.

Seb wrote:
>> I have never used SVN or CVS, but I understand it is almost
>>; indispensable, even to use locally/privately. I'm prepared to learn...
>>
>
> Yes, version control systems are just mandatory when it comes to
> produce code (and even for other things). Going back, merging,
> branching, logging, etc... this is where there's the whole project
> history.
>
Sorry,
but I never go back,
every change I make is an improvement !!
maybe that's why I hate CVS / SVN.

For some projects we use Subversion,
and I'll spare you the regular experiences,
but I can tell you, we just use it because the boss wants it

BTW, a version control is much too heavy for JAL.

>> I know nothing about licenses.....
>>
>
> Yeah, that's an important point ! From what I've observed, BSD and GPL
> licences are mostly used by jal coder. BSD allows commercial
> integration, far easier than with GPL. For instance, if you use a
> GPL'ed jal library with your own proprietary code, it may be
> contaminated. This is why LGPL license exists. None of this is a
> problem using BSD (or MIT) license.
>
>; Back to the repos, every file should (must) contain author/copyright
> and license terms before allowing them to be committed, so everyone
> knows what is used... provided multiple licenses are allowed within a
> same project (I'm searching...).
>;
>
Someone said I used MPL, but in general I use BSD.
In fact I don't want to use a license at all,
I just want:
- not to be blamed of what I've made
- allow to use my own product in any way I like it

In most cases I want to share my experiences,
And allow everyone to do everything with my libs he can think of.

If I don't want the above, I simply don't publish the code .

just my 2 cents.

cheers,
Stef

Messages in this topic (18) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

.