FLTK C for FreeBASIC Jan 09, 2017

External libraries (GTK, GSL, SDL, Allegro, OpenGL, etc) questions.
jdebord
Posts: 509
Joined: May 27, 2005 6:20
Location: Limoges, France
Contact:

Re: FLTK C for FreeBASIC Jan 09, 2017

Postby jdebord » May 12, 2018 9:08

Two questions about the Fl_Canvas widget:

1) The label does not appear:

Code: Select all

#include once "fltk-c.bi"

var win = Fl_Double_WindowNew(500,500)
var can = Fl_CanvasNew(50, 50, 400, 400, "Canvas")

Fl_WindowShow win
Fl_Run


2) What is the meaning of the parameters srcX and srcY in the callback subroutine?

Code: Select all

sub CanvasDrawCB cdecl (byval me as any ptr, _
                        byref dstX as long,byref dstY as long, _
                        byref cpyW as long,byref cpyH as long, _
                        byref srcX as long,byref srcY as long)
badidea
Posts: 978
Joined: May 24, 2007 22:10
Location: The Netherlands

Re: FLTK C for FreeBASIC Jan 09, 2017

Postby badidea » May 12, 2018 11:16

Fl_Canvas does not seem part of the official FLTK class list (http://www.fltk.org/doc-1.3/classes.html), but added by D.J. Peters, see: https://www.freebasic.net/forum/viewtop ... 80#p204384
Fl_Canvas extents Fl_Box which Fl_Widget. Maybe none of those show the labels.
You can use the label on the window.
Lost Zergling
Posts: 145
Joined: Dec 02, 2011 22:51
Location: France

Re: FLTK C for FreeBASIC Jan 09, 2017

Postby Lost Zergling » May 14, 2018 13:42

Hello Joshy,
Your FLTK wrapper is great job. I'm about switching my apps from TinyDialog to FLTK (need a refoundation of all interface).
You just mentioned "FLTK C wrapper copyright 2013-2017 by D.J.Peters" : I may have no doubt this job is of course GPL compliant.
This is of course implicit.
Formally adding such precision is very important for users who like me, are required to be able to formally justify the completely verified terms of the licenses (I do a little like an orchestra man : design, technical, legal, doctrine, documentation, support, evolution & maintenance in addition to my activities). This a professional choice for me the reason why I must ensure absolutely the terms of use.
ps : On my side I do not see conflict between the FLTK and (my) LZLE license: up to my mind, the executable from FreeBasic that would use both libraries would be falling automatically into the GPL terms (CeCill-C terms).
MrSwiss
Posts: 2764
Joined: Jun 02, 2013 9:27
Location: Switzerland

Re: FLTK C for FreeBASIC Jan 09, 2017

Postby MrSwiss » May 14, 2018 14:02

Lost Zergling wrote:... copyright 2013-2017 by D.J.Peters" : I may have no doubt this job is of course GPL compliant.
Nope, you've got it the wrong way around (not even close, to GPL):

- It means, legally speaking: *ALL RIGHTS RESERVED !*
- since, any sort of use allowed, isn't at all, specified (in writing, below copyright notice,
btw: the copright notice, isn't even required by law, it's implicit!)

This still holds TRUE, even in the case of D.J.Peters, who has disclaimed any such interest.
It is law, as written, especially in EUROPE, where *Public Domain* isn't a accepted law-term.
Last edited by MrSwiss on May 14, 2018 14:24, edited 1 time in total.
Lost Zergling
Posts: 145
Joined: Dec 02, 2011 22:51
Location: France

Re: FLTK C for FreeBASIC Jan 09, 2017

Postby Lost Zergling » May 14, 2018 14:21

In Europe, the public domain includes especially all patents that have not been renewed or expired. In the United States, some patents are renewable ad vitam eternam, this being a protectionist law derogatory to international uses. It is completely absurd to claim that the notion of public domain does not exist in French law. Another point is the "all rights reserved": which ones? If I take LZLE as an example, the source code has the specific protection of copyright, which is materialized by the CeCill license (even thought GPL compliant or not). In the US this particular protection seems weaker because the system is different and thus, the author often mentions "all rights reserved", which protects his owned copyrights. The right to use software freely or not is a sub-part of copyright and should be better specified. It is not because you grant a license that you are no longer the author: by analogy you can see the licensee a bit like a tenant and the author a bit like an owner.
I must deduce from your answer that, according to you, the code put online by JD Peters can not be used without the explicit agreement of the author.
MrSwiss
Posts: 2764
Joined: Jun 02, 2013 9:27
Location: Switzerland

Re: FLTK C for FreeBASIC Jan 09, 2017

Postby MrSwiss » May 14, 2018 14:36

Lost Zergling wrote:I must deduce from your answer that, according to you, the code put online by JD Peters can not be used without the explicit agreement of the author.
First and foremost:
this isn't by me, it's from a workshop I've attended, focussed on:
- Intelectual Property
- Trade-Marks
- Patents
(it's from a expert, who has professionally, spent the better/larger part of his work-life, in the Swiss Patent-Office)
- legally, your deduction is correct
Lost Zergling
Posts: 145
Joined: Dec 02, 2011 22:51
Location: France

Re: FLTK C for FreeBASIC Jan 09, 2017

Postby Lost Zergling » May 14, 2018 14:45

Sorry if my first message may have seemed offensive, this was not my idea. I respect copyright because it is legitimate.
ps : I perhaps made a mistake believing that it was following the GPL (in my defense, this point seems very complicated).
Last edited by Lost Zergling on May 14, 2018 14:56, edited 3 times in total.
marcov
Posts: 2629
Joined: Jun 16, 2005 9:45
Location: Eindhoven, NL
Contact:

Re: FLTK C for FreeBASIC Jan 09, 2017

Postby marcov » May 14, 2018 14:45

From what I know, in Code Penal like justice systems, public domain is automatic, but more importantly, copyright is inalienable (you can license, but not "give up'). So PD exists, but one can't place anything in it.

That makes copyright messages that "put" something in the public domain equal to giving up unalienable rights (copyright), which an author might later regret and rescind exploiting that technicality (with the argumentation that the contract was invalid to begin with). This makes such attributions unsafe, but the problem with it has never been tested in Court, for good or worse.

And of course the defence in such case would have a good argument that the author willingly put the message in with the intention of making it public.
Lost Zergling
Posts: 145
Joined: Dec 02, 2011 22:51
Location: France

Re: FLTK C for FreeBASIC Jan 09, 2017

Postby Lost Zergling » May 14, 2018 14:54

@marcov : Patent law is known for its very high complexity (I have notions but I'm not specialist). Entering some of the details is simply not feasible here. It can nevertheless be said that the public domain can be perceived as a protection against unfair claims, in that sense it is a fundamental guarantee of individual liberties.
MrSwiss
Posts: 2764
Joined: Jun 02, 2013 9:27
Location: Switzerland

Re: FLTK C for FreeBASIC Jan 09, 2017

Postby MrSwiss » May 14, 2018 14:59

marcov wrote:And of course the defence in such case would have a good argument that the author willingly put the message in with the intention of making it public.
I'd consider that a rather lame excuse, because there may be, a totally different reason behind publishing code:
- Nobody, not even the largest business on earth, with attorneys to spare, and billions in their coffers, can later
Patent my ideas and, therefore *exclude* me, from using my own code (published = no patent ever, since it's NOT new!)

This may come as a surprise, but is in fact my method, to protect my own code.
Lost Zergling
Posts: 145
Joined: Dec 02, 2011 22:51
Location: France

Re: FLTK C for FreeBASIC Jan 09, 2017

Postby Lost Zergling » May 14, 2018 16:04

What French law says on the subject (in general terms and unless I'm mistaken on my part): a multinational company can patent the method (not the code) and "steal" the idea for herself (it's legal since the author did not "paid" to patent the method). This is the logical counterpart to the freedom of coding on algorithms that are not in themselves patentable (system different from that of the US). The software is not patentable but the methods can be, but there is a catch: the author still owns its own copyright so he can continue to dispose of the code as he sees fit (granting licenses, etc.). The copyright is conferred by the design that must be original and new in the specific field of application (in this case the FreeBasic) and by the absence of illicit copying of course. It is important to distinguish between the patent and the copyright, and these notions may vary from one country to another.
marcov
Posts: 2629
Joined: Jun 16, 2005 9:45
Location: Eindhoven, NL
Contact:

Re: FLTK C for FreeBASIC Jan 09, 2017

Postby marcov » May 27, 2018 8:40

Lost Zergling wrote:@marcov : Patent law is known for its very high complexity


Probably, I'm sure Tax law is too, but we are not talking patents but copyright law here.
marcov
Posts: 2629
Joined: Jun 16, 2005 9:45
Location: Eindhoven, NL
Contact:

Re: FLTK C for FreeBASIC Jan 09, 2017

Postby marcov » May 27, 2018 8:47

MrSwiss wrote:
marcov wrote:And of course the defence in such case would have a good argument that the author willingly put the message in with the intention of making it public.
I'd consider that a rather lame excuse, because there may be, a totally different reason behind publishing code:
- Nobody, not even the largest business on earth, with attorneys to spare, and billions in their coffers, can later
Patent my ideas and, therefore *exclude* me, from using my own code (published = no patent ever, since it's NOT new!)

This may come as a surprise, but is in fact my method, to protect my own code.


I mainly reacted to no legal status of "putting in the PD". So if you assert your copyright, but accompany it by a note that it is in the public domain, while not officially legalese, a party could argue that you meant it free to use.

Posting your code with attribution early can be used in prior art. But usually that works best with highly mathematical/algorithmic code (and probably away from the downtrodden eighties subjects in this forum). The chance that it really matters is near zero. (and even if it hadn't, I doubt you could raise the funds to mount an effective defence)
nimdays
Posts: 204
Joined: May 29, 2014 22:01
Location: ID

Re: FLTK C for FreeBASIC Jan 09, 2017

Postby nimdays » Oct 02, 2018 3:46

Any update? 1.4 uses nanosvg and simple terminal.
D.J.Peters
Posts: 7433
Joined: May 28, 2005 3:28

Re: FLTK C for FreeBASIC Jan 09, 2017

Postby D.J.Peters » Oct 10, 2018 9:53

@Lost Zergling the FreeBASIC FLTK-C (C++ wrapper) is free for any usage only the C++ wrapper source code is copyright by me.

This does not touch any licenses from FLTK source code it self.
look at: http://www.fltk.org/articles.php?L364+I0+TFAQ+P1+Q
FLTK comes with complete free source code. FLTK is available under the terms of the GNU Library General Public License.
We have amended the LGPL to explicitly allow static linking of FLTK (or any modified version of FLTK) to your software.
The LGPL is not clear on this and we definately want to allow it.


@nimdays of course you can try to compile the C++ wrapper with version 1.4 of FLTK
but many things are hard coded for FreeBASIC and can/will fail.
By the way the vector gfx engine used in version 1.3.3 works great here.

Joshy

Return to “Libraries”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests