Pascal eXtended Library (aka Asphyre) released!

[hnb]

In case of PXL, the situation is quite different. As sad as it may sound, Pascal community appears to be quite small these days, so PXL, similarly to many other projects, has bus factor close to one. Although there are parts of the project, where others can contribute to, the reality is that it is difficult to find someone else, capable of truly maintaining and further developing it as a whole.

Using GPL is best way to block any potentially progress. GPL is the main reason why MSE IDE was not used as Sparta base. Today the only reason why Sparta and Generics.Collections was finished is Lazarus/FPC licencing model (LGPL + static linking exception for IdeIntf and GPL for core). IMO GitHub is the best place to find some contributors.

Well, contrary to AGG, the original author of PXL is, hopefully, still alive and can be reasoned with. I'm open to any different licensing options, including the project as a whole, but so far I haven't found any meaningful evidence why it should be done so. Even yourself, you did mention that you wanted to use PXL for something, but that still remains pretty unclear, so I really don't understand why it is such a problem. In fact, from what you are saying, I actually get more convinced that using multiple licensing choices as you initially asked was probably a mistake to start with.

In my TODO is (was?) PXL as game engine for sparta packages series (Open Source ofc) with integrated designer and ready to use project templates for android. The GPL is blocking the whole idea. Today PXL is used in restaurant in small android app to view some ads, but seems it's time to rewrite it.

GPL can be good for tools like GDB, but not for that kind of library... GPL for libraries means for me - keep away!

Nobody knows if tomorrow will fall under the car. From commercial POV PXL is useless. Your project is charged by high risk (one person, GPL licence + some futureless individual licences).

Most of my contributions to Lazarus/FPC are related to commercial stuff behind. Same for my contributions for mORMot. GPL PXL is outside my interest.

Anyway act as you want, but more consitent. Current situation is confusing.

[taazz]

Yeah, that's a pile of crap.
...
An other pile of crap.

Licensing is important for companies, and for many normal users. Changing the licence by owner is the reason for the creation of fork (example already mentioned). Maybe in your reality something is different.

Agreed one must always known hes obligations yes.

Changing the licence by owner is the reason for the creation of fork (example already mentioned). Maybe in your reality something is different.

Not really, the reason for forking might be anything but the only acceptable reason is to update the existing code base and only if the author refuses to support the features or include the patches to the main distribution. Changing the license doesn't even register as a reason.

Tazzz, what time is good for forking? Should I write a petition to you? Anyone creates a fork when needs.

Is that it? This is your reasoning? I'm not the expert in forking timing so I should keep my opinion to my self? Good for you, now where did I put the salt...

[ykot]

In my TODO is (was?) PXL as game engine for sparta packages series (Open Source ofc) with integrated designer and ready to use project templates for android. The GPL is blocking the whole idea. Today PXL is used in restaurant in small android app to view some ads, but seems it's time to rewrite it.

I don't see any problem with any of these. For Android App, there is no problem whatsoever. For Sparta, as long as the software is distributed for free, a special permission could allow using your software to create applications and not need to publish their source code, as long as GPL'ed PXL code in question remains unmodified, and user application provides credit to PXL in their "about box". Something like that. If you want to sell that software, we could think on a different approach.

Sure, you may feel this a bit more restrictive than just "do what you want when you want", but you can consider that as a collaboration with mutual benefits.

Nobody knows if tomorrow will fall under the car. From commercial POV PXL is useless. Your project is charged by high risk (one person, GPL licence + some futureless individual licences).

I'm sorry that you feel that way. I think you are viewing it a bit too harsh (maybe even a bit disrespectful, hopefully that wasn't your intention).  Have you ever used commercial packages yourself (in my case, FMOD and BASS come into mind, but there are many others)? What if PXL would be non-GPL, free for non-commercial projects and with paid license for commercial projects? In that case, according to you, would it be even more useless?

[hnb]

I don't see any problem with any of these. For Android App, there is no problem whatsoever. For Sparta, as long as the software is distributed for free, a special permission could allow using your software to create applications and not need to publish their source code, as long as GPL'ed PXL code in question remains unmodified, and user application provides credit to PXL in their "about box". Something like that. If you want to sell that software, we could think on a different approach.

Sounds more acceptable. Maybe is good idea to cooperate in this matter in near future.

Sure, you may feel this a bit more restrictive than just "do what you want when you want", but you can consider that as a collaboration with mutual benefits.

I don't know what is more efficient: approach presented by you or more mORMotish triple licence approach.

I'm sorry that you feel that way. I think you are viewing it a bit too harsh (maybe even a bit disrespectful, hopefully that wasn't your intention).  Have you ever used commercial packages yourself (in my case, FMOD and BASS come into mind, but there are many others)? What if PXL would be non-GPL, free for non-commercial projects and with paid license for commercial projects? In that case, according to you, would it be even more useless?

I didn't mean to offend you. In my case commercial project is only used if there is no good quality OS alternative (non-GPL ofc). There is so much available for free... GPL projects (especially libraries) do not exist for me. They are like transparent ghost, outside my interest. IMO is better for you to release PXL as full commercial library instead of GPL.

[ykot]

Sounds more acceptable. Maybe is good idea to cooperate in this matter in near future.

It seems that there could be a common belief that GPL licensed software might be part of some sort of religious anti-commercial cult, but I don't think it should necessarily be the case, especially in projects like this. The reason why I added "special permission" exception (although it can be implied in any case anyway) is that original author, who owns full copyright (that excludes any third-party contributed code, of course), is not bound by GPL and can actually re-license the product or grant permissions on it as needed.

So, in other words, as long as you want to use open-source project for academic and/or scientific purposes and don't really care about GPL, you don't ever need to think about it. On the other hand, you can still get a special permission to use the project under different terms and therefore might not even bound by GPL at all, depending on the permission given. This is why I think it is pretty flexible.

The only limitation comes for contributions, which have to be bound by GPL and likely to remain this way, but given current situation, in Pascal community, there are relatively few of us who develop frameworks. I felt this myself when had to find people to hire for one project a couple of years ago - finding someone with knowledge and experience in Object Pascal was *extremely difficult*, if not semi-impossible. If the situation changes and community grows, with more activity and contributions, I can always re-release the framework under more liberal license to put less burden on contributions.

I don't know what is more efficient: approach presented by you or more mORMotish triple licence approach.

After re-opening support forums for the project, I was quite surprised by the small amount of traffic, unlike some time ago like before 2010. Around that time and earlier, even some time before, when Asphyre project was Delphi-only, there was a huge traffic and many people interested in DirectX/OpenGL. Relatively recently, I have been watching posts here on forums along with some others regarding similar topic and really there are only a couple of people into this kind of technology, and unfortunately, for the most part, only those people who themselves work on frameworks, with very few, if any, being actual users. Maybe there is a huge hidden Pascal user base that I don't know about, but so far I couldn't find it. Therefore, I think that my current, sort of personalized approach, is efficient enough. Again, if situation changes, we'll see...

For a contrast, if a similar library would be written in, say, Python, there would likely be many more people interested in contributing, maybe even some big companies, which would definitely benefit better from a more liberal license terms, where you don't have to contact the author.

...GPL projects (especially libraries) do not exist for me. They are like transparent ghost, outside my interest. IMO is better for you to release PXL as full commercial library instead of GPL.

As I've said above, perhaps it's some sort of cult present in some GPL projects and/or developers that may give this overall perception. I didn't choose GPL as means to restrict PXL usage, but merely as a means of good legal protection for my investment - after all, I use PXL myself (and it was actually revived and developed for that specific purpose) for scientific work; could have kept it to myself. Having said that, I am not against its usage in commercial/closed-source projects, which is why I've provided the alternative to contact me for an arrangement.

[skalogryz]

I felt this myself when had to find people to hire for one project a couple of years ago - finding someone with knowledge and experience in Object Pascal was *extremely difficult*, if not semi-impossible.

Post the position here. Never saw a job proposal without a single response. I doubt that the number of people with knowledge and experience in Object Pascal declined for the past couple of years.

[hnb]

It seems that there could be a common belief that GPL licensed software might be part of some sort of religious anti-commercial cult, but I don't think it should necessarily be the case, especially in projects like this.
...
Therefore, I think that my current, sort of personalized approach, is efficient enough. Again, if situation changes, we'll see...

IMO with GPL situation can be even worse.

For example Castle Game engine is available on the terms of LGPL >= 2 license with static linking exception, PXL in comparison is problematic. Anyone need to remember to write to author. Castle can be used out of box in any kind of production - PXL not.

Your project was closed, then opened, then you changed the licenses from one to another. No one is interested into unstable GPLed project.

The perfect licence is licence like in castle (source can be transparently mixed with RTL/LCL):

The engine is available on the terms of LGPL >= 2 license with static linking exception. This is the same license as used by FPC RTL and Lazarus LCL. In short, you can make commercial and closed-source games using it, but you're expected to share your modifications to the engine core. See COPYING.txt for details.

Have fun!

Michalis Kamburelis (aka Kambi)

You protect your project only from potential further development. I am disappointed. Your code, your decisions. Anyway good luck!

[marcov]

If you want to use PXL in a closed-source project - there is an option for it (contact me for a special permission). If you want to make a commercial video game with it - there is an option for it (same as before). If you want to use it for academic/scientific work - current license doesn't restrict you in any way.

Yes, that was my point exactly. Very black and white, a choice most people shy away from it. Good luck with that, I hope you get a lot of sales from it, but I doubt it.

The only scenario that I can think of, is actually selling source code which contains parts of PXL - even in this case we might be able to negotiate something, but it may or may not be "gratis" for you.

It will never come to that. Simply people only want to talk/spend money when they have a clear path to shipping, and they won't design in parts. Specially if it is not fixed price and they might have surprises in the negotiation.

Anyway, good luck with that. I'm only interested in the font editor, and while that is for commercial purposes, I would only ship the results (the font textures), not anything based on PXL source, so it doesn't really hurt me. I thus wouldn't even have to publish my fixes. (though I will, since those part of the codebases are open anyway)

[ykot]

For example Castle Game engine is available on the terms of LGPL >= 2 license with static linking exception, PXL in comparison is problematic. Anyone need to remember to write to author. Castle can be used out of box in any kind of production - PXL not.

Is anyone forcing or preventing you from using it?

Your project was closed, then opened, then you changed the licenses from one to another. No one is interested into unstable GPLed project.

BS. PXL project since its release last year was never closed. For some time after release, I haven't decided yet on its actual license and tried some different options before settling on GPL.  There is nothing inherently wrong with that.

You protect your project only from potential further development.

Really? How? YOU were going to further develop it? Sounds like a bunch of unfounded words. Trust me, how I license my project, doesn't affect whether I would further develop it or not.

I am disappointed. Your code, your decisions.

I'm sorry you feel disappointed, but you are right that it's my code and believe it or not, it will do just fine!

Anyway good luck!

Wow, a good luck wish, in bold. Thanks!

Yes, that was my point exactly. Very black and white, a choice most people shy away from it. Good luck with that, I hope you get a lot of sales from it, but I doubt it.

Suddenly, you think I'm selling something? Isn't you the one who painting everything in black and white?

It will never come to that. Simply people only want to talk/spend money when they have a clear path to shipping, and they won't design in parts. Specially if it is not fixed price and they might have surprises in the negotiation.

Good, we don't want that (third-party selling PXL source code) either.

Anyway, good luck with that.

One more "good luck" wish? Gee, thanks!

So it seems that people who actually never supported, contributed or helped the project, and likely never will, no matter how liberal the license terms would be, are the ones who particularly feel uncomfortable with new licensing terms. Ironic, isn't it?

[ykot]

I'm only interested in the font editor, and while that is for commercial purposes, I would only ship the results (the font textures), not anything based on PXL source, so it doesn't really hurt me.

Sorry to hear that. I guess it must be painful for you to work on GPL'ed FPC compiler source code.

I thus wouldn't even have to publish my fixes. (though I will, since those part of the codebases are open anyway)

Considering that I've never got reply after I sent you source code, sounds like I shouldn't bet on it.

[marcov]

I'm only interested in the font editor, and while that is for commercial purposes, I would only ship the results (the font textures), not anything based on PXL source, so it doesn't really hurt me.

Sorry to hear that. I guess it must be painful for you to work on GPL'ed FPC compiler source code.

Professional and hobby. There is a difference

I thus wouldn't even have to publish my fixes. (though I will, since those part of the codebases are open anyway)

Considering that I've never got reply after I sent you source code, sounds like I shouldn't bet on it.

Considering that you are so negative over contributions I wonder why you go public at all.

[ykot]

Considering that you are so negative over contributions I wonder why you go public at all.

I don't. You can see that I've never came back to this site until yesterday, when tried to explain what was going on with the project web site. I don't intent to stay, however, so you shouldn't worry about that.

[Akira1364]

Am I the only one who thinks people care WAY, WAY, WAY too much about the largely meaningless semantic differences between various "open-source software licenses"? The way I see it is, if you intentionally, knowingly upload your code to a publicly accessible online repository, you have officially "open-sourced" it. You no longer have any reasonable right to expect that someone is not going to modify/use/sell/marry/breed/deep-fry it, for any of the countless possible reasons or purposes. If you want to make money off your code in the context of a commercial application, then just don't upload it to the public internet. Otherwise... go ahead, kudos to you for being willing to share! I really think it is as simple as that.

[TraumTaenzerDieter]

@Akira1364
You are right!

[ykot]

After having some long discussions on e-mail about PXL's licensing terms (though much less hostile than some comments here in the thread), it does seem a bit unfair to insist on GPL, whereas earlier versions of Asphyre have always used MPL. To avoid affecting those who already have project using Asphyre and want to update it to PXL, I have decided to relax licensing terms and re-release PXL again under MPL v2 similarly to other Asphyre releases, and keep this license from now on. I'll be doing this change on the web site and trunk during next week.

Also, I have been following news of what is going on with Delphi, where Allen Bauer has left the company. I had the pleasure myself to work for three years under his guidance and had my share of interesting arguments with him, so this change is quite shocking. Reading some discussions here and here doesn't provide much optimism either. As a result, I don't know how certain Delphi future is, and although FreePascal project is noble, at this time I'm not too comfortable putting all eggs in one basket. Therefore, I have decided to be rolling over PXL framework written in C++ (with focus on STL and C++11 features), and then maintaining both Object Pascal and C++ ports of the library at the same time (with higher priority set on C++ port, of course), maybe for a couple of years, until the situation clears. Thus, as an alternative, if you have project using PXL, you may have an option of porting it to C++ if one or both parties developing Object Pascal toolset decide to pull the plug. And if someone wonders why C++ - it is quite simple, because I happen to know it. I'll be doing pre-release of the new port, hopefully, in next few months.