• 0

    posted a message on Links
    Quote from Jerry »

    Indeed. I'm thinking of creating a Library "TooltipHook", so that :
    _ all default tooltips are hooked.
    _ any addon can register new tooltips to be hooked.
    _ any addon can hook all or specific type of tooltip information. (items, enchants, action, ...)


    Please do! :)
    Posted in: General AddOns
  • 0

    posted a message on PriceTag - add DKP prices to tooltips
    Ah, yeah, I used VitaDKPTooltip for a while, but it didn't add lines to enough tooltips. PriceTag works pretty much everywhere. :) Ludwig, ArkInventory, inspect frames, Links frames, etc.

    As for the "first page" problem - heh, I'd modifed my eqDKP site to get around that way back when I was first using VDKPT, and I forgot about it. I'll hack together a solution shortly.
    Posted in: General AddOns
  • 0

    posted a message on Links
    An API would be sweet. In the meantime, I commited a small change to add PriceTag support.
    Posted in: General AddOns
  • 0

    posted a message on PriceTag - add DKP prices to tooltips
    PriceTag

    What it is:
    Very minimalist mod that adds DKP prices to tooltips. It doesn't calculate them, it just fetches them from a file/eqDKP installation.

    What is does:


    How to configure it:
    • Edit the included getPrices.pl script to point to your eqDKP installation and run it using a perl interpeter to auto-generate the priceList.lua file.
    • Edit the priceList.lua file by hand.

    What's the format of the priceList.lua file?
    PriceTag_List = {
    	["Uber epic sword of smiting"] = "150000.00",
    	["Boring epic of nothing"] = "12.00",
    }


    What do I do if some tooltip isn't getting prices added?
    Let me know, and I'll look into adding support.

    I found a bug/I have a feature request!
    Reply to this thread, PM me, email me, hunt me up on IRC, or commit a fix. Whatever. <shrug>

    Where do I get it?
    http://www.wowace.com/files/PriceTag/

    Many thanks to the author of RatingsBuster, from which I ninjaed most of the tooltip code, and to Vita from whose VitaDKPTooltip addon I stole the getPrices.pl script. :)


    What's new?
    • 1/6/07 - Addon can now be disabled.

    What's planned?
    • Fancier price scraping script.
    Posted in: General AddOns
  • 0

    posted a message on oRA2 plugin - Buffassign
    For buffing, I've found AceBuffGroups to have a much more usable interface than kkbk.
    Posted in: Addon Ideas
  • 0

    posted a message on GPL licensing of addons and libraries
    Quote from Fritti »

    Quote from Wobin »

    couldn't you (from what I'm reading of this thread) licence it under BSD (or other licence) that will allow propogation of credit or somesuch? It doesn't necessarily -have- to be GPL, merely a compatible licence.


    Actually, the BSD-with-advertising-clause license is NOT compatible with the GPL, so that doesn't work either.


    That's correct. The original BSD license is NOT GPL compatible because of the credit clause. As such, it wouldn't work for an addon that used GPLed libraries, and the same will go for any similar license.

    However, I believe Ace2 is going to use LGPL, so you can use the original BSD license if you want (or indeed, anything else). Whether using a non-GPL compatible license for your addon is a GOOD idea is another question entirely. :)
    Posted in: General Chat
  • 0

    posted a message on CBRipoff
    1) Casting bar is used for your spells. Mirror bar is used for breath timers, exhaustion timers, feign death timers, etc.

    2) A good enemy casting bar (ie, better than the built in one under the mob nameplates) is useful, although I admit there's no real reason it needs to be provided by the same mod that gives you a better casting bar.

    3) As for mod recommendations, IceHUD has a good casting bar AND enemy casting bar. :)

    Posted in: General AddOns
  • 0

    posted a message on GPL licensing of addons and libraries
    This discussion is making my head hurt. :(

    From here
    It has always been the FSF's position that dynamically linking applications to libraries creates a single work derived from both the library code and the application code. The GPL requires that all derivative works be licensed under the GPL, an effect which can be described as "hereditary." So, if an application links to a library licensed under the GPL, the application too must be licensed under the GPL. By contrast, libraries licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) may be linked to proprietary applications.


    So...if you accept that at face value...if Ace2 was GPLed, then the process of running an Ace2 addon creates a derivitive work, which must be GPLed, right? That means all the components must be licensed under GPL-compatible licenses, but doesn't mean they must all be licensed under the GPL.

    On the other hand, the addon as it exists on WoWI would, arguably, not count as a derivitive work, since all the "linking", as such, takes place at run time. So the addon doesn't have to be under the GPL (although for it to be legal to ever LOAD the addon, it must be under a GPL-compatible license).

    So...in the special case of addons which are only interpreted in-game, I'm leaning to the conclusion that if Ace2 is GPLed, all addons would have to be licensed only under GPL-compatible licenses. (Even if they're distributed with Ace2, this would be "mere aggregation", so the GPL would only apply to your distributing Ace2, not to your addon.)

    _________________________________________________

    I provisionally (subject to me realizing that I STILL don't understand the GPL) withdraw my original objection to licensing Ace2 under the GPL which was that it'd be bad because it'd force all Ace2 addons to license themselves under the GPL.

    I believe it would actuallly require all Ace2 addons to license themselves under a GPL-compatible license. That still seems like a major hurdle, but seems at least potentially feasible (whereas making everyone choose the GPL did not).

    For philisophical reasons, I think the LGPL is a better choice for libraries, BECAUSE it allows proprietary addons like RDX to use Ace2 if they want to. I understand some people thing GPL is a better choice because it doesn't. :) Either way, I don't think it's a huge issue.
    Posted in: General Chat
  • 0

    posted a message on GPL licensing of addons and libraries
    Quote from Norganna »

    WowAce being GPL'd does not force you to use the GPL license for your addon.

    [...]

    However you're not being forced to do anything apart from choose to be "Free Software". This simply means that you'll chose a license which is compatible with the fundamental tennets of "Free Software".

    You may use any of these GPL compatible free software licenses for your addon.

    If you like MIT/X11 or Modified BSD (removed Advertising clause) or even Public Domain, go ahead.


    This would seem to be the core concern. As near as I can tell, everyone is agreed that both the GPL and LGPL would protect Ace2 and associated libraries from being forked, modified, and redistributed under a non-free license. The only factual dispute (as opposed to philisophical dispute) seems to be whether licensing Ace2 and associated libraries under the GPL would require any addons which used them to be licensed under the GPL.

    I base this understanding in part off the following text from here:
    Mere aggregation of two programs means putting them side by side on the same CD-ROM or hard disk. We use this term in the case where they are separate programs, not parts of a single program. In this case, if one of the programs is covered by the GPL, it has no effect on the other program.

    Combining two modules means connecting them together so that they form a single larger program. If either part is covered by the GPL, the whole combination must also be released under the GPL--if you can't, or won't, do that, you may not combine them.

    What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged).

    If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.

    By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.


    Now, I believe (but would be happy to be proved wrong) that an Ace2 addon falls pretty clearly into the realm of "combining modules". In particular, I note the bits about shared address space and exchanging complex internal data structures. Considering the way Ace2 works, I certainly don't see an argument that an Ace2 addon reperesents "mere aggregation" with Ace2 flying. :)

    I also think (but would again be happy to be proved wrong) that you've misunderstood what being "GPL compatible" means for a license in this context. Again, from here:
    What does it mean to say a license is "compatible with the GPL".

    It means that the other license and the GNU GPL are compatible; you can combine code released under the other license with code released under the GNU GPL in one larger program.

    The GPL permits such a combination provided it is released under the GNU GPL. The other license is compatible with the GPL if it permits this too.


    In other words, as I understand it, if Ace2 is licensed under the GPL:
    • If you create an Ace2 addon, the resulting addon must be licensed under the GPL.
    • You may, in addition, use other libraries if they are published under a GPL compatible license.
    • You may not use other libraries if they are published under non-GPL compatible licenses.

    This seems fairly clear and straight forward to me, which probably means I've completely misunderstood something. :) Question is...what? In particular, is there a good argument that an Ace2 addon doesn't represent combining modules? Or that even if it does, it doesn't follow that the resulting product must be GPLed if Ace2 is?
    Posted in: General Chat
  • 0

    posted a message on GPL licensing of addons and libraries
    Quote from ckknight »

    Codayus, do you realize what license Ace2 is under now?

    You act like it's under some kind of public domain, when it's actually under no license, which makes it the de facto All Rights Reserved.


    I'm perfectly aware of the existing (lack of) license, hence my questions about what would happen to the existing Ace2 if a GPL version was released. I said:
    Do you keep maintaining a non-GPLed version of Ace2? Under what license? If the next patch breaks Ace2, who can modify and release a fix to the non-GPLed version? Does Ace2 end up getting forked under a non-GPL license? Or do you end up forcing Ace2 developers who are unable or unwilling to license their addons under the GPL to abandon Ace2?
    That seems to cover most of the possibilities. Unless I'm missing something, either you say people can't use the non-GPLed version of Ace2 (thus breaking all existing addons), you release it under a non-GPL license, or you leave it in limbo. The first is going to piss people off, and the second and third seem to defeat the entire purpose of the excercise.

    Seeing as our code is already open (at least in the sense that everyone can read it), I don't see a reason to not attach a proper open source license to it.

    Not to be confrontational, but that seems to miss the point. Looking through this thread and the IRC logs, I'm seeing spirited arguments for the GPL, the LGPL, and for various BSD-style licenses. All are "proper" open soure licenses. I don't see a reason to not attach a proper open source license either - the question is, which one? :)
    Posted in: General Chat
  • 0

    posted a message on ArkInventory
    Feature request:

    I really need the ability to set categories to display in different bars in the bank frame than in the inventory frame. Any chance of getting this feature? The way I want to sort items in my bank is quite different than in my inventory...
    Posted in: General AddOns
  • 0

    posted a message on GPL licensing of addons and libraries
    Quote from Tem »

    Quote from ckknight »

    Take note: if you feel self-righteous because you wrote your great addon that the world cannot build upon, remember that you built it upon a framework that you can build upon. Such hypocrisy is disheartening in a community so grand.


    This sounds like a personal crusade to me and has no place in choosing what license would be best for the community. I will say this again: It is not our place to force people to be open source.


    While I agree with Tem, I think there are some practical points to be considered as well. As I understand it, if Ace2 and the libraries are GPLed, then any addon which uses them must also be GPLed. What consequences will this have?

    First, all existing Ace2 addons will have to either re-license themselves under the GPL, or stick with the current version of Ace2. Consider for the moment the vast number of Ace2 addons - not just all the ones on the SVN, but all the ones developed outside the community and only released on Curse or WoWI. Further consider that in many cases the original author may not even be contactable any more. Further consider that even when you can FIND the author, they may be reluctant to re-license using the GPL. What percentage of Ace2 addons will actually officially be re-licensed under the GPL?

    My thought is, a significant number (due to philosophical differences, apathy, or uncertain copyright) will not do so. So, then what? Do you keep maintaining a non-GPLed version of Ace2? Under what license? If the next patch breaks Ace2, who can modify and release a fix to the non-GPLed version? Does Ace2 end up getting forked under a non-GPL license? Or do you end up forcing Ace2 developers who are unable or unwilling to license their addons under the GPL to abandon Ace2? Seems like at best your asking for balkanization and at worst you're going to be killing off a big chunk of the userbase and generating truly impressive amounts of ill-will and bad publicity.

    Essentially, I think it's clear that an overly restrictive license (and in this context, the GPL is much more restrictive than the LGPL) is going to harm the community by reducing its depth. You'll definitely lose addons and developers by going for the GPL - how many do you think you'll gain? Enough to make up for it? That seems unlikely. :)

    Second, from my point of view, the good of the community is served by making sure as many authors as possible choose to use Ace2. Two factors make this happen:
    • Ace2 needs to be the best library possible.
    • Making selecting Ace2 attractive.
    ckknight's point, as I understand it, is that releasing Ace2 under the GPL increases the incentive for people to put quality code into Ace2 (and increases the ability to backport quality code into Ace2 in the event of a fork), and so serves point 1. It's a good and valid point - but my point is that requiring all addons that use Ace2 be licensed under the GPL is going to harm point 2. How many people are really going to say "well, since Ace2 is GPLed rather than LGPLed, I guess I'll use Ace2 for my next addon"? Any? Because I can easily imagine a non-zero number saying the reverse. :)

    As I see it, the good of the community is better served by the LGPL than the GPL - certainly for the core Ace2 library. :) (Also, sorry for the length.)
    Posted in: General Chat
  • 0

    posted a message on Duece Commander error
    Actually, I don't think so. Your last commit said it "added missing 'name' for DeuceCommander", but umm....it didn't. :)

    Since the fix was so minor, I went ahead and commited it. Error is gone, and I'm pretty sure I didn't break anything else. :D (If you'd rather see a diff rather than a commit in the future, let me know. <shrug>)
    Posted in: General AddOns
  • 0

    posted a message on GPL licensing of addons and libraries
    ckknight: Agreed 100% regarding the Bliz thing. They've got a vaguely plausible argument to own everything we do. So? Until and unless they decide to start sueing addon authors to assert ownership, it really doesn't impact us - so either we just give up now, or we ignore that unlikely scenario and select some appropriate licensing to be getting on with.

    Since other people have been throwing around quotes, here's one I think appropriate: "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." Since we can't do anything about it, we can worry about Bliz lawsuits when they arrive. :) (Which I don't think they will.)

    As for which license, I'm normally a fan of BSD-style licenses, but in the circumstances, and given the nature of the programming environment, I think LGPL is probably a better bet. (Not, of course, that it matters what I think; I haven't contributed code to Ace2 or any library or module.)
    Posted in: General Chat
  • 0

    posted a message on GPL licensing of addons and libraries
    From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF:

    Can I apply the GPL when writing a plug-in for a non-free program?

    If the program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license for the main program makes no requirements for them. So you can use the GPL for a plug-in, and there are no special requirements.

    If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. This means that combination of the GPL-covered plug-in with the non-free main program would violate the GPL. However, you can resolve that legal problem by adding an exception to your plug-in's license, giving permission to link it with the non-free main program.


    That's sounds fairly clear, and would indicate WoW addons wouldn't work under the vanilla GPL (without an explicit added exception anyhow).
    Posted in: General Chat
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.