Pascal eXtended Library (aka Asphyre) released!

[ykot]

I am happy that you are online again I worked for them too, but in the days of XE2.

Thanks, I've realized that it's difficult to stay offline, especially when my 2-year old son uses iPad (with online content) much more than I do.

Can you change LGPL to LGPL + static linking exception or to MPL? AFAIK with pure LGPL is useless to any closed source project :<

Sure, I don't have any issues with that. Previously, Asphyre was distributed on MPL terms, but that license seemed a bit outdated. I'll change the license terms into dual "LGPL or MPL" terms, if that'll help. The whole idea of this project is to be useful, after all.

[hnb]

Wife consumes a lot of time. With child + wife must be even harder .

Sure, I don't have any issues with that. Previously, Asphyre was distributed on MPL terms, but that license seemed a bit outdated. I'll change the license terms into dual "LGPL or MPL" terms, if that'll help. The whole idea of this project is to be useful, after all.

I have few plans with PXL library IMO the best option is triple license system: LGPL with static linking exception, GPL and MPL

[DonAlfredo]

@ykot

Question: could you provide a very simple example for Android with just an edit-box ?
Reason: I cannot find out how to receive touch-input (and react on that) with your library !

Thanks !

[HeavyUser]

Wife consumes a lot of time. With child + wife must be even harder .

Sure, I don't have any issues with that. Previously, Asphyre was distributed on MPL terms, but that license seemed a bit outdated. I'll change the license terms into dual "LGPL or MPL" terms, if that'll help. The whole idea of this project is to be useful, after all.

I have few plans with PXL library IMO the best option is triple license system: LGPL with static linking exception, GPL and MPL

Why? the idea of multi licensing is to allow the library to be used on applications/systems that are incompatible with a single license, why add gpl when it is already supported by lgpl?

[hnb]

Why? the idea of multi licensing is to allow the library to be used on applications/systems that are incompatible with a single license, why add gpl when it is already supported by lgpl?

Why not anyway we should use LGPL with static-linking-exception instead of LGPL.

[Bostjan]

I always thought that LGLP itself allows static linking and that this is the difference from GPL v2.

[HeavyUser]

Why? the idea of multi licensing is to allow the library to be used on applications/systems that are incompatible with a single license, why add gpl when it is already supported by lgpl?

Why not

Because adding licenses makes things harder for the library not easier. What happens if some one would like to donate code but only under the gpl license? The library then becomes a mine field on its own.

anyway we should use LGPL with static-linking-exception instead of LGPL.

To be frank I do not really care what kind or how many GPL based licenses will be used as long as mpl, bsd or any other truly free license is offered as well (just in case I have some use of the lib in the future) if mpl is included as a choice then lgpl with static linking or simple lgpl is a no issue. To keep things simple I would avoid any derivations from the official license with out a very good reason. In any case I'll stop posting about this matter in this thread I hate highjacking threads. I might PM you if I have something more to say if that's ok with you too, otherwise a new thread should be started somewhere.

[HeavyUser]

I always thought that LGLP itself allows static linking and that this is the difference from GPL v2.

no it allows linking to SO & dlls, static or dynamic makes no real difference. Static linking as defined in this forums means compiled in the executable which is not allowed from lgpl with out open sourcing your application too.

[hnb]

@ykot

MPL 2.0 is also good license for project (compatible with GPL) and is not outdated.

I always thought that LGLP itself allows static linking and that this is the difference from GPL v2.

Me too. With LGPL static linking is not allowed by closed source projects. :\ static linking is allowed by MPL and by LGPL with static linking exception.

@HeavyUser Pure LGPL is evil ^^ I don't have nothing more to say about licensing

[skalogryz]

LGPL v 2 (used by LCL) doesn't forbid static linking.
LGPL v 2.1 (used by RTL/FCL) requires dynamic linking.
See section Section 6.b in either document.

Note: that RTL/FCL as well as LCL are using modified LGPL, where static linking comes as an exception and thus allowed.

    b) Accompany the work with a written offer, valid for at
    least three years, to give the same user the materials
    specified in Subsection 6a, above, for a charge no more
    than the cost of performing this distribution.

    b) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the
    Library.  A suitable mechanism is one that (1) uses at run time a
    copy of the library already present on the user's computer system,
    rather than copying library functions into the executable, and (2)
    will operate properly with a modified version of the library, if
    the user installs one, as long as the modified version is
    interface-compatible with the version that the work was made with.

[ykot]

@ykot

Question: could you provide a very simple example for Android with just an edit-box ?
Reason: I cannot find out how to receive touch-input (and react on that) with your library !

Thanks !

Thanks for reporting this, it looks like I've forgot to uncomment some code in "PXL.Devices.Android.pas" after switching to hook mechanism. The fix will appear on GitHub later today, I'll try to make a scrolling map example and put it there too (new version of PXL will come later this week). I'll reported this in issues.

Regarding edit box - I haven't yet ported UI from Asphyre Sphinx 3 and have yet to find a way to contact Marcos regarding porting Tulip UI to PXL. The last one would be a particularly nice addition, especially on Android. As for editing text on Android - in one of future samples I'm thinking on providing an example with native edit box since this is probably the only reliable way to work with all Android virtual keyboards, mods and add-ons out there.

As for license discussion, would it be okay with everybody if I the library would be distributed under MPL only? From what it looks like, it's less restrictive than GPL/LGPL.

[DonAlfredo]

Good news !!!

A native editbox as a starter would be very nice.

I just had a look on Tulip UI.
If you succeed in porting ... that would be realy awesome !!!
I hope you will find the time (and cooperation) !

[hnb]

As for license discussion, would it be okay with everybody if I the library would be distributed under MPL only? From what it looks like, it's less restrictive than GPL/LGPL.

IMO, MPL 2.0 and never will be ok Thanks!

[ykot]

@DonAlfredo, I have fixed the touch issue on Android and have submitted a new Android sample "Terrain" that illustrates touch-based scrolling, to GitHub.

Edit: I had to recreate GitHub repository as it had some sample files messed up and didn't want this to remain in repo history, sorry 'bout that.

[DonAlfredo]

Ha ... you are a sorcerer 
Again, just compiled your Terrain sample out of the box, build the apk, copy to phone .... and I see a very nice scrollable moving landscape on my Samsung S3 !!! Apk size only 500kb. Very very nice !!
Thanks !
I will eagerly await your Tulip UI efforts ...