Re: windows bindings

["chris.danx" <chris.danx@ntlworld.com>]

> > Gwindows looks like a good candidate, however there are some issues that
> > come to mind.
> >
> > The first is license compatibility, the project will use the 'MIT
> License'.
>
> What is the MIT Lic?

The same license as X is distributed with, on sourceforge they call it the
mit license.  http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html


> GWindows comes under the GMGPL not sure why this
> creates a problem regardless of lic.

I've asked here before but not got any reply (lost in the 'is Ada dying'
thread? <rh>) on the issue of what this license allows and how it affects
tools written with tools that use it, hence my confusion as to
compatibility.  I believe the X (MIT or OpenGroup) license is compatible
with the GPL but I wasn't sure how compatible it is with the GMGPL.  Has
anyone wrote a simplified (i.e. not in legal jargon) summary of the GMGPL
license that describes what it allows like the ppl have tried to do with the
GPL?

> Any changes to GWindows would of course
> come under that lic., but code with'ing GWindows should not be 'infected'.

Brill.


> > The second is using OpenGL with GWindows (which admittedly I haven't
> looked
> > at)
>
> No biggy. GWindows gives you direct access to the Windows Handles, etc. so
> hooking in to any of the available OpenGL bindings should be a non issue.

That's great.


> Even though my main focus is on promoting Ada, I certainly am a believer
in
> the GPL (where it doesn't conflict with the main focus :-). Writing "free"
> software certainly seems more natural on a "free" compiler ;-)

Normally I'd feel the same.

The goal for the future is to have a degree of compiler independance, but
that looks a longway off at present. i.e. I'll worry about that later (there
are likely going to be a few C developers on the C implementation, but I'm
the sole Ada developer, which is very worrying all things considered), and
if need be port Gwindows to ObjectAda if it's still going strong.


Thanks,
Chris