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

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


On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 09:55:15AM +0000, jflesch kwain net wrote:

- Libpillowfight (image processing):

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[1].

Even if Paperwork depends on them, I assume I won't be allowed to host
them on, 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 ?

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.


The freedom to distribute copies includes both binaries and source

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 :
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.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]