Re: Paperwork / Gnome's dos and don'ts

[jflesch kwain net]

17 mai 2017 18:30 "Debarshi Ray" <rishi is lostca se> a écrit:

> Hey,
>
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 09:55:15AM +0000, jflesch kwain net wrote:
>
> > - Libpillowfight (image processing): https://github.com/openpaperwork/libpillowfight
> >
> > In the long term, I will try to replace them by developing alternatives
> > based on GObject Introspection.
>
> For what it is worth, GEGL is a very capable GObject-based image
> processing library.
Good point. I wanted specific algorithms (the one in the command-line tool 'unpaper' and SWT for instance), 
and I couldn't find them in any existing library. I guess now that I have made a first implementation, at 
some point, I could implement them in GEGL as well (which in turn would bring the benefit of using GPUs).


> > But right now, those modules don't use GTK+/Gnome technologies at all
> > and therefore don't meet the prerequisites to be hosted on gnome.org[1].
> >
> > Even if Paperwork depends on them, I assume I won't be allowed to host
> > them on gnome.org, right ?
>
> The path of least resistance might be to keep them on GitHub for the
> time being. Would that be problematic?
Not really actually :-)
I was just wondering if keeping everything in one place is an option. But using both hosting is also fine.


> > b) Commercialization of Windows portage
> >
> > A while ago, I tried to sell the Windows version of Paperwork. It was
> > based on a 60 days trial period + activation keys (the code is still
> > visible on GitHub, but it is disabled). It didn't have much success
> > at the time, but I still haven't forgotten my dream of being rich
> > someday ;). I'm considering re-trying later (I'm thinking of keeping
> > the version N-1 free and making the version N commercial).
> >
> > Would that be a compatible with being hosted on gnome.org ?
>
> I would definitely want code using GNOME infrastructure to comply with
> the definition of Free Software. ie., it would be fine to charge money
> for the Windows build, but once somebody has paid for it she should be
> able to (a) run it as they wish (b) study how it works and make
> modifications (c) distribute copies, and (d) distribute copies of
> their modifications.
>
> See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
>
> The freedom to distribute copies includes both binaries and source
> code.
Afaik, what I did (and may do again) do respect the GPLv3. The sources are and were always available 
(activation mechanism included). I also indicated how to make a Windows build without the evil DRM : 
https://github.com/openpaperwork/paperwork/blob/unstable/doc/devel.windows.markdown#disabling-the-cruel-and-unusual-drm
In that case, the only thing I didn't provide is the private key used to generate the activation keys.

I despise Windows, but I love free software. Also Paperwork had many contributions included over time 
(assuming GPLv3 every time). So it's very important for me to respect the GPLv3 as strictly as possible.