Page 198 of 209 FirstFirst ... 193196197198199200203 ... LastLast
Results 2,956 to 2,970 of 3130

Thread: TradeDangerous: power-user trade optimizer

  1. #2956
    Mark - Not that I can go far wrong with cut & paste, but please can you give the mac section of the setup guide a quick glance over and make sure I haven't screwed up anywhere. Thanks

  2. #2957
    Well, I have the documentation pretty much how I think it should be.

    If you guys have the time/inclination please can you look it over and point out the glaring errors.

    I do know it needs polishing, so please try to be nice at this stage, I will run it all through a spell checker and stuff before I declare it finalised - at this point I am more interested in big issues, not nitpicky ones, please.

    Anything which is obviously blatantly wrong, or belongs in another document, or could be worded much better (with the better words, please) would be appreciated.

    Note that I've taken the original (endlessly long) README.md and moved most of that into the wiki, so don't be surprised when you see that is now concise, with appropriate links to useful documents, rather than looking like the manual page for the Unix C Library.

    So, see the README.md on https://github.com/eyeonus/Trade-Dangerous and all the rest is in the wiki https://github.com/eyeonus/Trade-Dangerous/wiki

  3. #2958
    Why was the licensure changed to the restrictive copyleft GPL 3.0? If you're worried aout warranty, use BSD2 or MIT. If you want future development of this code to be released as FLOSS use the MPL 2.0. GPL is strongly copylefted and means that no one else can develop TD without releasing their ENTIRE work as GPL. I'm strongly tempted to fork the project before that change JUST for that reason,

    Furthermore, legally, I am not sure you can change any of the licensure without permission of all the contributors of work in the current state. That is more than just eyeonus and tromador. I would stringly urge this to be undone and rethought. https://github.com/eyeonus/Trade-Dangerous/issues/16

  4. #2959
    Originally Posted by Tromador View Post (Source)
    Mark - Not that I can go far wrong with cut & paste, but please can you give the mac section of the setup guide a quick glance over and make sure I haven't screwed up anywhere. Thanks
    There's a line break in there that should probably be removed after "(3.7 at the time of writing)." but apart from that it looks fine.

  5. #2960
    Originally Posted by Avi0013 View Post (Source)
    Why was the licensure changed to the restrictive copyleft GPL 3.0? If you're worried aout warranty, use BSD2 or MIT. If you want future development of this code to be released as FLOSS use the MPL 2.0. GPL is strongly copylefted and means that no one else can develop TD without releasing their ENTIRE work as GPL. I'm strongly tempted to fork the project before that change JUST for that reason,

    Furthermore, legally, I am not sure you can change any of the licensure without permission of all the contributors of work in the current state. That is more than just eyeonus and tromador. I would stringly urge this to be undone and rethought. https://github.com/eyeonus/Trade-Dangerous/issues/16
    The only copyright that has been asserted is Oliver's original, which says you can do anything provided it is included. My research (I did look this up extensively before making the change) says you can add restrictions, but not remove them - if you think differently wrt GPL or where multiple contributors are concerned, please cite.

    As it stood, there was zero licensing, such that the entire project could be downloaded, wrapped up and released entirely as a closed project with 3 lines of Oliver's copyright included in a plain text header.

    I pretty much went with GPL (after discussing with Eyonus) because EDDBLink is already under LGPL.

    So before you decide to strike down upon us with great vengeance and furious anger, I am not averse to a less restrictive licence, so long as it ensures that TD remains free and open source. Maybe I should have thrown it out for discussion first, but I do want our hard work protected by something more robust than

    Code:
    # You are free to use, redistribute, or even print and eat a copy of
    # this software so long as you include this copyright notice.
    # I guarantee there is at least one bug neither of us knew about.

  6. #2961
    Mark, you released your tool under the MIT. I don't think you can any longer even link to TD if it's under the GPL.

  7. #2962
    Originally Posted by Avi0013 View Post (Source)
    Mark, you released your tool under the MIT. I don't think you can any longer even link to TD if it's under the GPL.
    Do you want to talk about this, with a view to potentially making a change, or just be the last angry man? If it was a dumb thing to do, I'm happy to discuss, but not if you are going to throw your toys out of the pram or take the bull in a china shop approach.

  8. #2963
    Originally Posted by Tromador View Post (Source)
    The only copyright that has been asserted is Oliver's original, which says you can do anything provided it is included. My research (I did look this up extensively before making the change) says you can add restrictions, but not remove them - if you think differently wrt GPL or where multiple contributors are concerned, please cite.

    As it stood, there was zero licensing, such that the entire project could be downloaded, wrapped up and released entirely as a closed project with 3 lines of Oliver's copyright included in a plain text header.

    I pretty much went with GPL (after discussing with Eyonus) because EDDBLink is already under LGPL.

    So before you decide to strike down upon us with great vengeance and furious anger, I am not averse to a less restrictive licence, so long as it ensures that TD remains free and open source. Maybe I should have thrown it out for discussion first, but I do want our hard work protected by something more robust than

    Code:
    # You are free to use, redistribute, or even print and eat a copy of
    # this software so long as you include this copyright notice.
    # I guarantee there is at least one bug neither of us knew about.
    You are clearly allowed to release under a more restrictive license, and you're probably correct in that any contributions we made prior, if unrestrictive, can be rolled up. But what this now does is makes it virally copyleft going forward. For example, Mark now has to research what he can do with his helper tool if he's even linking to TD (since it's GPL and not LGPL). I personally am opposed to viral copyleftism, as I think it makes it impossible for work to be shared outside of the GPLverse. I understand why you wouldn't want to give away your work for free (although Oliver did ) so MIT/ISC/BSD may not be acceptable to you. Please look into the Mozilla Public License and for some background as to the problens of viral/restrictive copyleftism, please see:


  9. #2964
    Originally Posted by Tromador View Post (Source)
    Do you want to talk about this, with a view to potentially making a change, or just be the last angry man? If it was a dumb thing to do, I'm happy to discuss, but not if you are going to throw your toys out of the pram or take the bull in a china shop approach.
    No, I'm not going away. I just think y'all made the wrong decision. I've also been an observed student of FLOSS licensure for about a decade, and have seen enough issues (between Wikipedia Commons, R packages, and other areas) to know that this can get very complicated and to become somewhat of an anti-GPL evengelist. So excuse the fire and brimstone Moreover, I can fork the project, reset the head to the commit before the GPL, and work on it myself if I have to. But no, I'm not leaving in a huff

    I DO think though that you've put Mark in a tough spot if he is linking to your code. IANAL, but if you have to install TD seperately and all his button does is run it, that may be OK, but I'd have someone ask. If he packages TD with his helper, he may have to change that. But it IS something he has to research now, whereas before he didnt.

  10. #2965
    OK Cool. Let's not have Mark scurrying to the solicitor's office quite yet. I will have a read of the documents you've linked and being as eyeonus really has done the bulk of the heavy lifting, obviously his opinion counts for much. Certainly the current position is such that at present it can be changed.

    EDIT: MPL would work for me - but ultimately it's eyeonus who has the final say.

  11. #2966
    Originally Posted by Tromador View Post (Source)
    OK Cool. Let's not have Mark scurrying to the solicitor's office quite yet. I will have a read of the documents you've linked and being as eyeonus really has done the bulk of the heavy lifting, obviously his opinion counts for much. Certainly the current position is such that at present it can be changed.

    EDIT: MPL would work for me - but ultimately it's eyeonus who has the final say.
    I'll say the same thing I said at the beginning.

    Originally Posted by eyeonus View Post (Source)
    Oh hell, I don't care. GPL I guess? Pick a copy-left licence that says free to do whatever as long as you give the original author credit.

  12. #2967
    Fine - so everyone would be happy with MPL2?

    I just hit the sack, assuming there is no dissent, I will make that change when I emerge

  13. #2968
    Originally Posted by eyeonus View Post (Source)
    I'll say the same thing I said at the beginning.
    Originally Posted by Tromador View Post (Source)
    Fine - so everyone would be happy with MPL2?

    I just hit the sack, assuming there is no dissent, I will make that change when I emerge
    If you specuifically want copyleft in that you want what you provide to the public to remain public (with attribution) then yes, MPL2 should be enough. By going GPL, you create viral copyleftism in that anything which builds on TD becomes GPL. This way, technically, someone can on the one hand, build a permissive tool (like Mark's TD Helper under the MIT) and still use TD so long as TD is in seperate files and that is stil MPL. On the other, big evil Fronteir can decide to include TD into the proprietary ED: Horizons code, so long as the TD files remain seperate and they themselves are released under the MPL 2. Look into it yourselves, but I think it's the sweet spot middle ground.

  14. #2969
    And it is done.

    And as my sleeping pill is working exceptionally well for once at combatting my insomnia, I am going back to sleep.

    May I draw your attention to this post before it gets lost amidst the licensing discussion. https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...=1#post6861699

  15. #2970
    Originally Posted by Tromador View Post (Source)
    Well, I have the documentation pretty much how I think it should be.

    If you guys have the time/inclination please can you look it over and point out the glaring errors.
    The downside to this approach is that you will have to periodically refresh your copy of TD by hand....
    I suggest adding "(i.e., whenever there's an update to TD on github.)".