Check the Lazarus and fpgui/fpgfx widget sets for FPC.
They are more or less what you want to do, (independant library to qt, gtk, some also xlib and win32 GDI) and maybe you can convert them to GPC objects style.
Thanks, looks good. But for me it is no problem to write in another language then Pascal since the graphical layer is written as a sub-layer.
www.freepascal.org/fpgui www.freepascal.org/lazarus
Personally, I think that you'll have to switch to GTK because of the reason nearly everybody uses GTK: because of the license of QT (not free!)
Maybe, but it is for a company. And I think it is no problem for them to pay. It will be non open source, non-free software. Do you know how this works in according with GCC, GPC an GTK+ (GPL?).
Borland uses QT, but paid the fee's. (so if you buy Delphi for Linux, you have a license to use QT, and develop and deploy programs), so that is a different category.
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 09:26:54PM +0000, Menno Schaap wrote:
Check the Lazarus and fpgui/fpgfx widget sets for FPC.
They are more or less what you want to do, (independant library to qt, gtk, some also xlib and win32 GDI) and maybe you can convert them to GPC objects style.
Thanks, looks good. But for me it is no problem to write in another language then Pascal since the graphical layer is written as a sub-layer.
www.freepascal.org/fpgui www.freepascal.org/lazarus
Personally, I think that you'll have to switch to GTK because of the reason nearly everybody uses GTK: because of the license of QT (not free!)
Maybe, but it is for a company. And I think it is no problem for them to pay. It will be non open source, non-free software. Do you know how this works in according with GCC, GPC an GTK+ (GPL?).
I'd just like to add that Qt is, as you've probably seen on slashdot, now available under a free (GPL) license for developing free software. For developing non-open-source software you have to pay for a Unix license, however.
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 02:28:22PM +0200, Jo Dillon wrote:
I'd just like to add that Qt is, as you've probably seen on slashdot, now available under a free (GPL) license for developing free software. For developing non-open-source software you have to pay for a Unix license, however.
Yes, but it is not LGPL.
Eike Lange
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 05:03:43PM +0000, Eike Lange wrote:
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 02:28:22PM +0200, Jo Dillon wrote:
I'd just like to add that Qt is, as you've probably seen on slashdot, now available under a free (GPL) license for developing free software. For developing non-open-source software you have to pay for a Unix license, however.
Yes, but it is not LGPL.
No, it's not under the Lesser GPL. That's why you need to pay to develop proprietary software.
Menno Schaap wrote:
Maybe, but it is for a company. And I think it is no problem for them to pay. It will be non open source, non-free software. Do you know how this works in according with GCC, GPC an GTK+ (GPL?).
GCC and GPC are no problem. The GPL explicitly states that "the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program" which is not the case for the compilers.
The GPC runtime system also does not pose restrictions on your program's license. Same goes for most of GPC's units, exceptions are GMP, rx (LGPL) and MD5 (GPL).
You can link LGPL'ed libraries to non-GPL'ed programs under a few conditions (see COPYING.LIB).
So, if GTK+ is GPL, you can't use it in your program, if it's LGPL, you can if you respect those conditions.
Frank
-
Eike Lange -
Frank Heckenbach -
Jo Dillon -
Menno Schaap -
Sergio A. Kessler