41–50 of 63 posts
Should really have a demo link somewhere. You can click through to github, to be told that it's what their Fargo tool is based on, and from there you can click through to that... to be told that you have to link it to your dropbox account before you can even try it.
http://littleoutliner.com/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never seen a good answer to that question. I've emailed the FSF and others and they all tell me to consult a lawyer for how the license works (if they respond at all).
IANAL, but the spirit seems to be "hey, here's this software, use it how you like, but if you distribute it (including building on it or bundling it in a product) please be kind enough to extend the same freedoms to those you give it to." Using Concord on your site? Offer a link to the source. Modify it to work better with a framework? Offer that modification too. Build an entire product off of it? Well, be prepared…
However, if you incorporate Concord into a product you sell, then you either need to provide the source per the provisions of the GPL, or else negotiate a different license from Winer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never seen a good answer to that question. I've emailed the FSF and others and they all tell me to consult a lawyer for how the license works (if they respond at all).
IANAL, but the spirit seems to be "hey, here's this software, use it how you like, but if you distribute it (including building on it or bundling it in a product) please be kind enough to extend the same freedoms to those you give it to." Using Concord on your site? Offer a link to the source. Modify it to work better with a framework? Offer that modification too. Build an entire product off of it? Well, be prepared…
here is the source http://github.com/hhuuggoo/efficiently
and the demo: https://eff.iciently.com/docview/r/4ed70c031a7ba32edb000002/
But this one is an app, not a plugin, so it might be less useful to some.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When folks stop talking about trees and start talking about graphs, they seem to forget that you usually want to have an order on the edges. I think an outliner is a great way to explore a fully connected directed graph with sequenced edges; just don't hit "Expand everything" when the graph contains a cycle. Leo http://leoeditor.com/ expends a lot of effort to avoid cycles, which shows up in slow execution when addin…
What do you mean by an "order on the edges"? I'm only superficially familiar with graph theory.
On the other hand, when dealing with trees (aka outlines) it is almost always assumed that there is a significant order - a sequencing - on the edges between parent and child, and that it means something if you change the order of the children (outline subheads).
I'm interested in more general (directed) graphs that nonetheless have a sequence - an order - on the edges, and where operations on that sequence are explored, in addition to the more usually examined addition and removal of edges. Until holographic displays are cheap (and maybe even after) I think trees, aka outlines, are a great visualization technique for such graphs - just take precautions with "Expand All" when the edges contain ((A,A)) or ((A,B), (B,A)) or any other length cycle. Or, as an outline
This is heading A
This is heading A
....
This is heading B
This is heading A
This is heading A
....
This is heading B
This is heading A
This is heading A
....Earlier quoted context omitted.
The GPL is not about being practical, it's about freedom. That's why it's the only licence I would consider releasing software under.
It's not about freedom, and I'm a bit sick of that Orwellian categorization (War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength). Unlike other open source licenses which outline your rights, the GPL is a document that is filled with taking rights away. It's also ridiculously complicated, to the point where no one is completely clear on what is or isn't allowed (and the LGPL is even worse). It's not practical and…
I will agree that it is complicated but that's a result of years of companies abusing loopholes and the nature of trying to cover every conceivable scenario. It's an old codebase but still the best we have.
Practicality is never the consideration of an idealist and the GPL is definitely the product of an idealist. RMS has often appeared like a crazy old man but as time passes, he seems to be proven right more often than wrong. A consequence of idealism and the march of progress, maybe.
You're of course well within your rights to choose a different way but your characterization of the GPL not being about freedom is a bit off the mark.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never seen a good answer either, despite searching for one. I've also seen a lot of smart people that are confused by the GPL despite reading a lot about it. I've seen much less of this confusion with other copyleft licenses, like the EPL in the Clojure community. The GPL sucks, full stop.
The GPL is not about being practical, it's about freedom. That's why it's the only licence I would consider releasing software under.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never seen a good answer to that question. I've emailed the FSF and others and they all tell me to consult a lawyer for how the license works (if they respond at all).
I've never seen a good answer either, despite searching for one. I've also seen a lot of smart people that are confused by the GPL despite reading a lot about it. I've seen much less of this confusion with other copyleft licenses, like the EPL in the Clojure community. The GPL sucks, full stop.
3k LOC in a single file... ouch. Someone introduce Dave to makefiles.
I'm almost certain he writes the code using an outliner tool as well like was the case for the scripting language that shipped with frontier and the OPML editor so that probably makes it easier for him to manage. At least it will be easy to include into a project ;-)
If you look in the opml folder of the repo you'll find the source files for all the js and css files.