Oolite Bulletins

Simon B wrote:

http://www.7-zip.org/
... from what I can see, The Extractor is proprietary software.

Nope it's free.

Cool - which free software licence does it use?

Simon B wrote:

Cool - which free software licence does it use?

From the 7-Zip faq:

Can I use the source code of 7-Zip in a commercial application?

Since 7-Zip is licensed under the GNU LGPL you must follow the rules of that license. In brief, it means that any LGPL'ed code must remain licensed under the LGPL. For instance, you can change the code from 7-Zip or write a wrapper for some code from 7-Zip and compile it into a DLL; but, the source code of that DLL (including your modifications / additions / wrapper) must be licensed under the LGPL or GPL. Any other code in your application can be licensed as you wish. This scheme allows users and developers to change LGPL'ed code and recompile that DLL. That is the idea of free software. Read more here: http://www.gnu.org/. You can also read about the LZMA SDK, which is available under a more liberal license.

Copyright (C) 2011 Igor Pavlov.

Simon B wrote:

Cool - which free software licence does it use?

I'm not sure it says it's free, and there is (like the Wiki) a donations option discretely built in to it's interface.

I think it's excellent and very easy to use.

http://theextractor.org/

TGHC wrote:

Simon B wrote:

Cool - which free software licence does it use?

I'm not sure it says it's free, and there is (like the Wiki) a donations option discretely built in to it's interface.

When I am talking about "free software" I do not mean "zero price". I mean that it is licensed to grant specific rights normally reserved under copyright.
Please refer to the free software definition for more details.

When you installed it, did you have to click "I agree" to anything? Did you see an EULA of any kind?
Does it have a copyright notice - usually under "help" in a menu?
Can users obtain a copy of the source code?

Rather than badgering the poor man, why not bloody well go look it up yourself if you're so interested in it. He provided a link to the software. And if you're not that interested, why beleaguer the point? My suspicion is you are trying to lead him by the nose to your favorite pet cause in some vain hope he'll "see the light and convert."

Bigotry, in all its forms (even software bigotry), is ugly and drives people AWAY from whatever cause you are hoping to have them adopt. Reminds me of the joke: "The beatings will continue until morale improves".

I think that was a bit harsh, Cmd. Cheyd. Having said that, I agree that it makes more sense to just check out the thing rather than asking a million unnecessary questions to the person who offered to help with a suggestion.

Like OXP's you just use what suits you. It didn't cost me anything and is very simple and quick to use, so not bothered about all that other stuff.

Holds out a bag......... jellybaby anybody?

TGHC wrote:

Holds out a bag......... jellybaby anybody?

Got any purple jellybabies? If so, yes!

Here you are.

Mmmm... thanks.

Purple my Ar e!

Cmd. Cheyd wrote:

Rather than badgering the poor man, why not bloody well go look it up yourself if you're so interested in it. He provided a link to the software. And if you're not that interested, why beleaguer the point? My suspicion is you are trying to lead him by the nose to your favorite pet cause in some vain hope he'll "see the light and convert."

I did ... and I have not been able to find any publication of the software licence for The Extractor.

The little information I can gather suggests that it is not free software.
However, this conclusion was contradicted here ... I was delighted to be wrong on this matter and asked for details.
Then it transpires that there may have been a misunderstanding which I attempted to put right.

[edit]
BTW: it is not a secret that I am a software freedom activist. However, it is not my intention to force it down anyone's throats - I agree: that is counter-productive. You cannot force people to be free, even though we do try to protect freedoms gained. TGHC seems to have understood the intent and spirit of the messages correctly: use what you feel good about using. I would add that you should make an informed decision about this ... so: be aware of and read the contract terms for the software that you use.

I do not, as a rule, recommend non-free software when free software is available. The general proliferation of non-free software is demonstrably unhealthy. The arguments surrounding this position are well documented elsewhere. Anybody wants to discuss the matter should contact me privately.

That's generally. In the specific case of archive managers, there are so many that can extract and pack each others archives that there is not much downside in picking one that comes with strongly restrictive licensing. It is still good advise in general to read ones contract before clicking "I agree", to know what you are getting into. Similarly, if I am encouraging people to accept a particular contract, I try to make sure I am familiar with it first, or warn people that I don't know the details "but it looks good from here".

I would have loved to be able to recommend The Extractor to my Windows-using friends. From the look of things it is not as feature-rich as 7-zip but if you just want to unpack without worries (only extracts?), it has a pretty intuitive interface. I cannot trial it, or even open the archive it comes in, because I do not run Windows (the download link points to a windows executable). I didn't see any packages for gnu/linux, xBSD, or Macintosh or any UNIX variant.

I use gnu tar and gzip myself - I don't normally recommend them either, unless the person is happy typing things into a terminal. Few want to be that involved with their computer. For those that are interested:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/tar
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gzip

... these utilities are usually part of more general package handlers.

Wikipedia has a comparison of major file archivers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison ... _archivers

OK I fi-nally got around to upoading the new Katapo.
This file is zipped only so don't give me any grief about it alright I think the texture could use a bit of work ... if someone wants to put it through a darkness/contrast filter - maybe make the glowing bit more blue or something? Or just redo it completely? Whatever - feel free and tell me what you think.

In the new katipo.oxp: Texture file is presumably the one named "katipo-main-fx.png", so renaming it should fix that.
"flat-normalmap.png" does not appear to exist.