Ext 2.0 Gui Designer

[psavolai]

We will also stick to version 2.02 of the ExtJs package. We will check if it also works on other packages, but will not bundle it with any other version. Our source will stay LGPL so as long as you project complaint with this you can use it.

Yes it would be greate to have screencam of the problem. Also if you could try it with the version at www.projectspace.nl because this is my test site.

Sierk

I will screencam it for you, and use your site to do it ,but I'm a way for a couple of days, so maybe on friday.
Very nice of you to stick with LGPL.Thank you.
I read all 32 pages of the debate in the forum. phew.
Wonder if there's going to be a fork of 2.0.2 ... we'll see.

Petri.

[psavolai]

I will screencam it for you, and use your site to do it ,but I'm a way for a couple of days, so maybe on friday.
Very nice of you to stick with LGPL.Thank you.
I read all 32 pages of the debate in the forum. phew.
Wonder if there's going to be a fork of 2.0.2 ... we'll see.

Petri.

---- EDIT
Sorry Serk,
It was my fault.
The Json had some inconsistencies and thats why the selection didn't beahave as expected.

In fact This 1.8 Seems to perform at least as nicely as the previous did.
once more, I'm so sorry.

Another subject,

What If we do buy a commercial license, how could we attach GuiDesigner to allow our
customers customize their installation of our application ?
Or do we just instruct them to dowload it and use it as a separate thing at their own risk ?

Petri.
---- EDIT

[sierk]

---- EDIT
Sorry Serk,
It was my fault.
The Json had some inconsistencies and thats why the selection didn't beahave as expected.

In fact This 1.8 Seems to perform at least as nicely as the previous did.
once more, I'm so sorry.

Another subject,

What If we do buy a commercial license, how could we attach GuiDesigner to allow our
customers customize their installation of our application ?
Or do we just instruct them to dowload it and use it as a separate thing at their own risk ?

Petri.
---- EDIT

Because our desginer is release under LGPLv3 (lesser GPL) and also codepress you can use it with a commerical product if you comply to this license. If you bundel then this is the most important part of the diference (by keep in mind whole LGPLv3 license applies).

3. Object Code Incorporating Material from Library Header Files.
The object code form of an Application may incorporate material from a header file that is part of the Library. You may convey such object code under terms of your choice, provided that, if the incorporated material is not limited to numerical parameters, data structure layouts and accessors, or small macros, inline functions and templates (ten or fewer lines in length), you do both of the following:

a) Give prominent notice with each copy of the object code that the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this License.
b) Accompany the object code with a copy of the GNU GPL and this license document.

See also the code header

/*License: This source is licensed under the terms of the Open Source LGPL 3.0 license.
  Commercial use is permitted to the extent that the code/component(s) do NOT become
  part of another Open Source or Commercially licensed development library or toolkit
  without explicit permission.Full text: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.html*/ 

Sierk

[tof]

Because our desginer is release under LGPLv3 (lesser GPL)

Geez ,

My GUI Builder was released under GPL, not LGPL.
You agreed on this license on this forum thread; and, anyway, the "COPYING" file is specifying the GPL, not LGPL.

I am sorry you cannot change this license, even for a fork...

However, there is no really interest for the builder/designer to be under the LesserGPL, since this license is mainly used for librairies.

With the designer on GPL, you can still use :
- extjs LGPL
- extjs GPL
- even extjs commercial

So, please, care of the licence of my original project, and advertise on GPL. Codepress being LGPL does not change anything.


Thanks

[sierk]

Geez ,

My GUI Builder was released under GPL, not LGPL.
You agreed on this license on this forum thread; and, anyway, the "COPYING" file is specifying the GPL, not LGPL.

I am sorry you cannot change this license, even for a fork...

However, there is no really interest for the builder/designer to be under the LesserGPL, since this license is mainly used for librairies.

With the designer on GPL, you can still use :
- extjs LGPL
- extjs GPL
- even extjs commercial

So, please, care of the licence of my original project, and advertise on GPL. Codepress being LGPL does not change anything.


Thanks

All,

I agree with TOF that the usage of GPL or LGPL will not make a lot off difference for someboy using extjs, but because i created an extjs component off it (library) and not like the orginal idea a standalone application. It can be used as a library and therefor I use LGPL.

To solve our different opions on which license to use (Main reason is that I started the my code before tof added the license to his original) i asked him to discusse this with me in a private thread and he accepted. I will stick to LGPL also when this means i need to remove the original Gui desgin from tof and replace it with something new.

Sierk

[tof]

Hi Sierk,

Again, I do not want any conflict about this. I'm pro-GPL, and that's why I insist on this.

As you must have seen in the code, the main work of the builder is not the interface / design (which is really poor from my point of view).

I spent more than one week on :
* how the components can be dynamically added / removed / updated
* the ID components association
* the search of parents'parent's .... tabpanel/border layout and other complex components
* the generation of the cfg.js file
* the detection of the elements in the design area
* the visual resize thing
* ...

And I spent about half a day on the visual gui (since this app was made for developpers, this is the last thing I had in mind).

So, the design is not what is to be recoded; that's the core of the builder that should be.

I decided to put my work in the public domain, that's not a big request to ask for a license choice, is it ? This does not discredit your work in any way.

[sierk]

Hi Sierk,

Again, I do not want any conflict about this. I'm pro-GPL, and that's why I insist on this.

As you must have seen in the code, the main work of the builder is not the interface / design (which is really poor from my point of view).

I spent more than one week on :
* how the components can be dynamically added / removed / updated
* the ID components association
* the search of parents'parent's .... tabpanel/border layout and other complex components
* the generation of the cfg.js file
* the detection of the elements in the design area
* the visual resize thing
* ...

And I spent about half a day on the visual gui (since this app was made for developpers, this is the last thing I had in mind).

So, the design is not what is to be recoded; that's the core of the builder that should be.

I decided to put my work in the public domain, that's not a big request to ask for a license choice, is it ? This does not discredit your work in any way.

A license discussion has started between me and tof the owner of GuiBuilder as you can see
Based on that i decided to remove all version of the designer. Remove all code that is unique for the GuiBuilder that is still in GuiDesigner and will release a complete new version (2.0) of it totaly as LGPL.
I hope to do this within 4 weeks as of 25-april-2008.


After this statement it is time to responed to the reaction of tof about some of his elements.

• Adding,moving,detection is nothing more then Drag and Drop and therefor not a unqiue element. See also the orignal idea tof based his code one.
• The component assosation (_node) is not a unique coding style, but i don't need it.
• Documentation of items will be recreated from documentation.
• If you look at the original code and compare you will see there has changed allready a lot

The Ext.ux.Designer as an extjs component is not the same as the formbuilder, but uses part of it, where at moment of split the license was unclear. This is a mistake from myself that I will fix shortly. I want to make clear that the changes i made are not part of the orignal and therefor not scope of the discussion.

Sierk

[tof]

Well, I don't mind this decision; though I'm actually quite confused since I make you rewrite a lot of things from scratch, only because we could not agree on a license because of my convictions.

Let's this subject closed, and, as I said lot of times in the Builder Thread, most parts of the code are dirty, and actually need a rewrite. So this is not such a loss.

[poplei]

expect

[bomka]

Sierk, any thoughts on when this will be available again? The functionality offered seems great (at least reading this post), so wondering when I can see something in "action"...
thanks.