Page 1 of 21

Read this if you've found software useful to ReactOS

Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 1:19 am
by mf
Because lots of people post software on the forum that might be useful to include with the ReactOS base installation, I've made a question chart to make sure only useful programs get suggested.

Ready? Go!

Image

Hope this clears everything up.

Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 1:50 am
by Cristan
Great chart! I think it can be really useful and I totally agree with it! Perhaps you could host the image on reactos.org in stead of imageshack, because I can see how this file could be handy for quite some time.

Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 4:30 am
by Haos
What about MIT license?

Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 11:25 am
by mf
Haos wrote:What about MIT license?
I don't know, I just took this off wikipedia.

Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 12:20 pm
by forart
1. Interesting, but what about make it dynamic (maybe a part of the compatibility database submission form) ? It would also be great to have a color compatibility-like approach too...

2. I think the path from the step 2 should divide into GPL compatible or GPL incompatible.

Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 1:00 pm
by mf
forart wrote:2. I think the path from the step 2 should divide into GPL compatible or GPL incompatible.
Yes, that's what I did. I don't get your point?

Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 12:29 am
by dreams
Excellent chart, should be in a faq!

Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 3:56 am
by Z98
Haos wrote:What about MIT license?
MIT License is comparable to the BSD/X11 licenses. For that matter, I think for a time the X Windows system was under the MIT license, if it still isn't.

Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 7:21 am
by oiaohm
MIT license does not exist. Most cases what people think is the MIT licence is the Expat License. That is GPL compatible.

For simplisty I would have myself just pointed them to http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/i ... leLicenses
<addon> Or place a copy of that on reactos in the wiki. So that new licenses don't need updating of chart. </addon>

Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 2:27 pm
by Phobos
MIT license does exist, it is also called X license or X11 license (which is on the chart), and it's a lot like BSD

Expat happens to use a MIT license for distribution, along with putty and others

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php

Utility Toolbar

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:12 pm
by andrewweb
:D Great chart, does COMPILED, pure delphi qualify(it is pure win32, unlike vbasic!).

Look in the suggestions section for my bit about Utilituy toolbar(PLEASE include it!) :D

Re: Utility Toolbar

Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 5:56 am
by Phalanx
andrewweb wrote::D Great chart, does COMPILED, pure delphi qualify(it is pure win32, unlike vbasic!).

Look in the suggestions section for my bit about Utilituy toolbar(PLEASE include it!) :D
That is the very problem. The project is open source, and meant to be compiled with as little other tools/libraries etc as possible. That is why they state C/C++, not win32 binaries. Even while in win32 it can matter if it is a win32, MFC, etc.

Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 8:28 am
by .aart3k
yes, MIT aka. X11 (included in chart) is used by xorg.
BSD also gives you permission to use organization/people names in the name of your derived software promotion

Re: Utility Toolbar

Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 12:34 pm
by mf
andrewweb wrote::D Great chart, does COMPILED, pure delphi qualify(it is pure win32, unlike vbasic!).

Look in the suggestions section for my bit about Utilituy toolbar(PLEASE include it!) :D
Delphi is derived from Pascal, which is on the chart.

Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 1:16 pm
by FSX
Why isn't the Xfree86 license GNU compatible? All it says is that you need to say ROS was made using fooware, if you use fooware to make something else. Or does that violate the GNU's strict, enslaving terms on those matters?