![]() ![]() :)Īs described in #420 (comment), Fava created an Electron app with the following steps. If there are other people with more recent experience who'd like to share, I'm all ears. I haven't written a fresh desktop Python app/installer in a decade, and the one I did wasn't cross platform. I'd prefer we didn't do that again if we can avoid it. That's a risk of wasting time, for sure, but could work out fine.Įlectron definitely seems heavy, and that's a very common sentiment. I feel like we'd just need to try it if we wanted to go that route, and abandon it if it doesn't work out. I could believe that despite the early stage of development, we wouldn't have a problem, because we don't need much. I'm not positive that avoids legal issues, but it seems like it? As long as we're ok with a GPLed binary?īeeware's tools have "is a work in progress" or "experimental" in many places on their docs. You're right, that fbs itself is still GPL, and on my plain, possibly naive interpretation, the code that uses it at a minimum has to be GPL too, and probably the binary produced. I got confused by the second paragraph there. ![]() This could be licensed as whatever, and the resulting binary will be GPL that uses BSD code, which is just fine, and there will still be the pip install method that brings in only BSD code.Īh yes, I misread. ![]() Separate repos would keep us away somewhat at least from the cognitive dissonance of sporting a GPL payload from a BSD project in the core repo. My suggestion, if we choose to go for fbs, is to create the desktop app as a separate repository. As a side note, the PySide2 vs PyQT issue is irrelevant, since the binary will be GPL anyway. If that's a problem or not to us, that's to be discussed. Now, if we choose to ignore that statement (or better yet, we get the project's author to rephrase that statement in a more open-source-friendly manner), there's still the implication of that GPL'ed code: whatever binary we produce using that code will be a derived work, hence it will be automatically licensed under the GPL. It is probably not enforceable, given you can get the code straight from the repository, and that would be governed by the given license, which is pure GPLv3, but it still smells. I am not a lawyer, but to me that statement on the front-page smells. So this constraint is in addition to fbs's own licensing terms. That same section also states, "When using fbs, there are two other projects whose licensing terms you need to obey". I may misunderstand, but I think if we use fman build system, we could only be constrained by LGPL if we choose the PySide2 option instead of PyQT. The project's front page also states "You can use fbs for free in open source projects that are licensed under the GPL" and that seems problematic, more on that below. Not really because this is open source shrug ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |