Eniretu GUI
Community Forums/Showcase/Eniretu GUI
| ||
| Eniretu is yet another open source GUI I'm making, though this time it's completely single-surface (it never uses more than one surface) and doesn't use my preprocessor. At the moment, this is what it looks like:  Other Images: WIP 1 WIP 2 WIP 3 The bottom panel is a window without a title bar, the top panel is a minimized window with a minimize and close button. The slider and dial both control the cube's alpha (like the last Stre demo, I'm using a cube for testing events -_-). The progress bar shows a percentage between 0 and 100. Eventually I'll probably make the progress bars animated (the little arrows on it would change based on the value of a global, probably). You can download the source (at the bottom of the source is some code for testing it).. but first: If you download the source code, extract the GUI, and use it in any way, you agree to the terms set forth by this license. (Mozilla Public License version 1.1) Ok, enough of the legal nonsense, DOWNLOAD |
| ||
| Cool idea for a gui. You could probably make a whole 2d-in-3d game single surface using a similar method..... Add a couple more gadgets and it'll be a full blown system. BTW, are you still developing lotus r2? |
| ||
| There is a problem with the license: With a change of the license you can not change the license that was applied before the change so people who downloaded before are not affected by it, even if you put this part into the license. Beside that it is a fair license. Will have a try with the GUI to see how good it runs ( as it is 3D I think it will run quite good :) ) |
| ||
| With a change of the license you can not change the license that was applied before the change so people who downloaded before are not affected by it, even if you put this part into the license. Give me a couple hours and I'll figure out how to read that. bot: Not at the moment. With BlitzMax being soon-ish and my having other projects to focus on it's not high on my priority list. |
| ||
| Any changes made to this license by the author (Noel Cower) affect ALL releases of Eniretu and its included files. This part of the license does not hold for previously released stuff with another license, even if you write it into the license. A mousepointer from the GUI itself would be nice :) beside that it works quite good |
| ||
| A mousepointer from the GUI itself would be nice :) I'll get around to that eventually, just wanna get widgets and stuff in first ;) This part of the license does not hold for previously released stuff with another license, even if you write it into the license. Ah well, best I can do is make people think that ;) |
| ||
| Updated the archive (and above image, but that's of less concern). Eniretu now has check and tick boxes. |
| ||
| There is a problem with the license: With a change of the license you can not change the license that was applied before the change so people who downloaded before are not affected by it, even if you put this part into the license. Beside that it is a fair license. ONLY for that version. A new version number can have a new license. Even if it's identical. License applies strictly to the version it refers to. |
| ||
| This is VERY cool!! Great Job Noel!! |
| ||
| Very Nice! I love the percent bar and control. How about some basic game controls for huds and stuff? |
| ||
| This is awesome!! is it faster than F-UI 3D? |
| ||
| Noel: Why was the text that said, "By using Eniretu in any way, you agree to become my sex slave for all of eternity." in the license white? I couldn't read it until I highlighted it. Glad I didn't download it. heh It's a very nice GUI. Good job my friend! |
| ||
| Why was the text that said, "By using Eniretu in any way, you agree to become my sex slave for all of eternity." in the license white? Pretty clever being able to do that in a text file... |
| ||
| Wasn't it? |
| ||
| Not much work done on it recently since I'm trying to come up with a moderately easy way to clip polygons to a rectangular area on the screen (which means I'm gonna end up doing some hacking to my text drawing function). Single-line text boxes and spinners are in now though. The archive hasn't been updated yet because I feel that the text box isn't complete enough. I'll probably add in list boxes come the next update anyway. is it faster than F-UI 3D? Can't say, I haven't compared the two. Seeing as there's a lite version, you can do that yourself if you felt like it. If mine is faster, then F-UI is still far more complete, versatile, and has great support. Why was the text that said, "By using Eniretu in any way, you agree to become my sex slave for all of eternity." in the license white? Fancy doing that in a file format with no markup options. How about some basic game controls for huds and stuff? I'll release a seperate bit of code for that soon enough, since it's really very simple. |
| ||
| Your license agreement is riddled with holes :) I can cut and paste some code from this version into the old version and sell it. |
| ||
| Big deal, if you have any ethics you wouldn't. |
| ||
| weird license. |
| ||
| What is it with spastic program names? :) Big deal, if you have any ethics you wouldn't. But thats the WHOLE POINT of a license. By having a license you assume NO-ONE has ethics. |
| ||
| By having a license you assume NO-ONE has ethics. No, by having a license I'm stating that my work is not public domain. |
| ||
| It's still true what I said. Licenses assume no-one has ethics. |
| ||
| I just saw the license, very interesting, are you ok Nowel? you don't use those kinds of words often. So I can't use this GUI in a commercial project at all? and any changes I make I have to give to everyone? so if I change part of the source, like I add an extra button on the toolbar of a window (behaviour like window minimized, goes at the bottom of the window, Windows OS style) and I have to give the source for just modifying that? |
| ||
| I've switched it to the GNU GPL because it does pretty much the same thing, but it's more thorough. The change in license does not affect any archive that did not include the gpl.txt document, obviously. |
| ||
| Noel... Love ya dude... And your gui looks pretty top-notch. But I won't develop anything with something that's GNU-GPL'd. If I want to charge for my software and make some cash off of it, I surely don't want to be limited by the gpl. Good looking job on the gui though. |
| ||
| You can make money from something thats gpl'd right?? You just have to make the source your modifications available. I think the BSD license is much more what the GUI needs |
| ||
| You can make money from something thats gpl'd right?? You just have to make the source your modifications available. Basically, if you don't modify the source to the GUI then you don't have to release your source code. And if you do change it then you are required to release the changes publically (with the same license). You can still do commercial software with GPL'd code, just look at Unreal Tournament 2004- it uses SDL (Simple DirectMedia Layer), which uses the GNU LGPL (Lesser General Public License), for the Linux version. If you really want to know, you should read the license and find out. It's written well enough for most people to understand easily. |
| ||
| The way I understood it was that you could release just a binary... And even charge for it. As much as you wanted. But the person that buys it can then turn around and distribute it to whomever he wants for free. Lemme see if I can dig up that portion of the license that I read... |
| ||
| Here's a few quotes from the offical FAQ for the GPL... If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer. I understand this to mean that I have to offer to disclose my source if I use something that is GPL'd in my program. As I then become the third party referred to in that relevant section. Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money? Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.) Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site? Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide "equivalent access" to download the source--therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary. Does the GPL allow me to require that anyone who receives the software must pay me a fee and/or notify me? No. In fact, a requirement like that would make the program non-free. If people have to pay when they get a copy of a program, or if they have to notify anyone in particular, then the program is not free. See the definition of free software. The GPL is a free software license, and therefore it permits people to use and even redistribute the software without being required to pay anyone a fee for doing so. If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge? No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public. Those Q&A seem to me that if I write a program with your GPL'd gui, my work becomes a derivative of it and must be GPL'd itself, and subject to the above. Which states that someone can buy my "for sale" work and simply turn around and put it up on download.com for download by anyone. which seems to be verified by: If I use a piece of software that has been obtained under the GNU GPL, am I allowed to modify the original code into a new program, then distribute and sell that new program commercially? You are allowed to sell copies of the modified program commercially, but only under the terms of the GNU GPL. Thus, for instance, you must make the source code available to the users of the program as described in the GPL, and they must be allowed to redistribute and modify it as described in the GPL. These requirements are the condition for including the GPL-covered code you received in a program of your own. Maybe I'm reading it wrong? Something I don't understand? I *can* be a bit thick headed now and then so correct me if I'm wrong. Kanati |
| ||
| Those Q&A seem to me that if I write a program with your GPL'd gui, my work becomes a derivative of it and must be GPL'd itself As far as my knowledge goes, the license still only applies to the GUI and not your work. Using the GUI in your work means you've agreed to the license though. So, if you have modified the GUI itself and then someone requests the source code, you're required by law to give it to them. Maybe I'm reading it wrong? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't say for sure. |
| ||
| Noel, I don't think you want to use GPL, as this is how I understand it. If you use GPL it means you are forcing the author of the work that uses your library to provide the source code, if so asked. You would also, from the terms in the license, basically be forcing the author to GPL his work too. The author must provide all of the source, not just the source to your library. from the license... "For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable." This is really bad because some of the code may be under other licenses but the author is still required by the GPL to give it out. Now there are a couple things that can be done to help here because you can't break the license you had with the other authors, but it's just way too much trouble and complicated. I don't think you want to use LGPL either because of this line... "As an exception to the Sections above, you may also compile or link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications." LGPL works best for dynamically linked libraries and would perform the way I think you want if your library was a dynamically linked one. from reading your post, I think you want Mozilla Public License (MozPL or MPL) "The MPL, authored by Netscape Communications as part of their open-source release of Communicator 5, strikes a balance between the BSD license and the GPL. Private derivative works are permitted, while changes to MPL-covered source must be made freely available on the Internet. The MPL, however, is non-viral: additions to (as opposed to modifications of) the MPL-licensed source which form a "larger work" may be licensed differently and need not be published at all." I have not yet gone through the whole license myself. |
| ||
| here are some comments and links for many different software licenses. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html |
| ||
First of all, new screenshot of the rollouts: Secondly: The MPL sounds nice. I had a read over it and decided that until I find a license I prefer to it I'll use it instead of GPL (I don't want to force users of Eniretu to open-source their work.. though it'd be nice.. of them.. not me..). Thirdly: The archive has been updated with the latest widgets and such. The text box isn't guaranteed to work very well at all (in fact, I need to rewrite its update procedure), but it's there for completeness. |
| ||
| this is pretty kool Noel |
| ||
FUI/Eniretu Comparison screenshot There's a small error in the FUI screenshot where the Red progress bar says it's at -61%. That'd be my fault. |
| ||
| Noel: while that is very impressive FPS, it is by no means a good measurement of speed since, F-UI has far more gadgets than you :) sorry to burst your bubble. |
| ||
| looks to me that in the shots above they are using the same number of active gadgets. what am i missing? |
| ||
| FIX YER TEXT BOX! :) |
| ||
| RifRaf: It matters because the updating of the gui in FUI would have to check for far more gadget types even if they aren't being used. Or at least that's my theory. |
| ||
| Kanati/Inner have a good point. Even so, I could just as easily remove those checks to compare again. Kanati: I'M WORKING ON IT! If you want the freakin' text box useable sooner, do it yourself- I have a cold and I'm busy with other stuff at the moment. -_- sorry to burst your bubble. Sorry to inform you that I made no derogatory statements against F-UI's speed. I compared the two's speed with the exact same scene, I never said that one was better than the other or that mine was better than F-UI. |
| ||
| If you want the freakin' text box useable sooner, do it yourself You kidding me? That's like... work and stuff. :) |
   |