|
Hello Folks,
For an upcoming side project - a Desktop GUI app, open source, Apache 2.0 licensed, I'm slightly confused regarding what technology to use.
Skills wise, C#/WinForms should be my natural choice as that was the primary technology I had worked on before losing employment at Tech Mahindra few years back and getting into freelancing. But post my freelance experience, I taught myself things like open source and Python as it came with the territory, and now PySide2 is also a running candidate in this race!
The goal here is to be as much ubiquitous as possible - that my app should be easy to just "download, extract and run" by as many people as possible. A couple decades ago, a .NET GUI library targeting Microsoft Windows platform would have been the clear choice here as most people used Windows OS and targeting that platform meant being ubiquitous.
But over the last few years, I've observed that Windows OS has been continuously losing its market share to Linux Distros and Mac OSX, mostly due to some incorrect decisions and strategic blunders by the former than some ground breaking or revolutionary innovation on part of the latter. This means .NET or WinForms is no longer the ideal choice today if you want to be cross-platform and ubiquitous.
This lead my research to some other toolkits like the Java Swing library, for example. It's old but classic, not a bad choice at all in this case, platform independence is Java's biggest selling point. However, the app I'm making is non-trivial and slightly performance intensive, and Swing GUIs are known to be sluggish on PCs unless you ensure a good supply of RAM by tweaking the JVM settings. I'm also not very experienced in Java to be able to handle those situations in case they arise.
I also considered Lazarus IDE/Object Pascal, it is also not a bad choice. It is open source, used as the primary course language across many Universities in Europe and most importantly, still maintained and developed. But guess I will have to teach myself a whole new paradigm along with a programming language in case I go this route.
Finally, Python is something I've almost settled on for this project. It's a language that I'm very fond of and it has helped me survive through the tough times in the freelance market. It also has a vibrant ecosystem and rich repository of user contributed packages like PyPI.
Now, I've worked on the default Tkinter library in past but somehow felt that it's quite limited in terms of making the GUI more flexible and "tweakable", especially a non-trivial one having several container widgets, syntax editors, menus and drop-downs, trees and list views, etc. PySide2 is, from what I understand, a better choice in this regard as it is comprehensive and based on the time-tested Qt interface. It is not only very easy to code and maintain but also very easy to port across various platforms.
What do you think? In which direction should I go here?
|
|
|
|
|
If you're going to discount Windows Forms, then you also need to discount WPF and UWP. And Windows 11 just became an IOS "App" ... whatever that implies.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
Xaml UI is the clear winner regarding .NET GUI
Similar concepts and classes are used by WPF (the first one to introduce them), Xamarin/MAUI (phone apps), WinUI (the new Windows native API) and Avalonia (3rd party, opensource, multiplatform, native GUI, including Linux and OSX)
|
|
|
|
|
MAUI, perhaps? That could make your desktop app be (relatively easily) ported to MacOS.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
#Worldle #666 1/6 (100%)
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🎉
https://worldle.teuteuf.fr
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
if I want to write articles about Albert Einstein and use some pictures taken from Wikipedia from here.
is there any copy right issues for these pictures?
diligent hands rule....
|
|
|
|
|
Albert Einstein assigned all rights to his papers, photos, etc. to the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. I don't know if the copyright(s) on these items have lapsed.
I doubt that the Hebrew University pursues copyright violators with the same vigour as Disney does, but why take the chance? The prospective publisher of the articles should have ways of verifying whether the copyright has lapsed. Otherwise, you may want to contact a copyright lawyer in the country of publication.
EDIT: The Hebrew University does pursue copyright violators vigourously!
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
modified 20-Nov-23 12:38pm.
|
|
|
|
|
There is a difference between the copyright of Einsteins own works and e.g. photos of him.
For the author's works, the general rule in Europe - and I believe this is generally accepted in other parts of the world - seventy years after the death of the creator, the works fall into the public domain. As Einstein died in April, 1955, you still have to wait for another year and a half before you can use his works freely.
However, most countries allow you to quote a copyright protected work. The interpretation of this 'right to quote' may vary from one jurisdiction to another, but I think if you both stay within limitation common in European countries and in the USA, you are fairly safe (especially since we are so close to the expiry of the general copyright protection).
The OP didn't ask about the copyright of AE text, but of the photos of him. That is a different thing; the copyright belongs to the author. If the photographer hasn't been dead for 70 years, by default, you cannot use the photos he made. He may, however, have released his works to the public, that be through the publication on Wikipedia or in other ways.
Pictures published on Wikipedia under different copyright regulations. Some are public domain, free to use. Some are not so free, but usually quite liberal. You will have to check up each photo individually to see what applies to this photo. For Albert Einstein, it varies among the photos of the Wikipedia article: Some are free, some slightly more restricted. When you see something else than 'public domain', you have to look up whatever that means. Maybe all it means it that you have to quote Wikipedia as the reference, but as long as you do that, you may use it freely.
|
|
|
|
|
If an image-editing or rather, image-embellishing software like Gimp is used to modify the image, and this modified image is published, then will it be a copyright violation?
By image editing, I mean some kind of modification as in slightly blurring, dithering, etc. I become the copyright owner of this modified image, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
Re: "slightly" modified.
That's not "fair use".
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
Not necessarily, it may be considered a "derived work", which the owner of the original work may still forbid. This is how, for instance, Paramount can forbid the production of "Star Trek" fan fiction.
Consult a copyright lawyer in the country(ies) of intended publication.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Generally if the image is hosted on Wikipedia, even as part of the sidebar info, clicking on it will take you to the Wikipedia image hosting page where the actual copyright status will be displayed.
90% of the time if Wikipedia are actually hosting and displaying the image, it'll nearly always be CC2.0
I have seen the very rare few that are not, but CC2.0 is by far the most common.
If it is copyright, clicking on the image and going to the Wikipedia host page usually tells you who it belongs too and where to get further info.
|
|
|
|
|
if the owner of copyright died for 50 years and did not renew the copyright, there is no copy right anymore.
this is what I read from Copy Right laws.
diligent hands rule....
|
|
|
|
|
- That applies in the US, not necessarily in other countries. If you intend to have you publication available outside the US, you must check the local laws. There are books that are available in the US but not in the UK (and vice versa) precisely for that reason.
- How do you know that the Hebrew University did not renew the copyright, without checking?
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
That was never the rule in the US. A few countries use Life+50, but most (including, for new works, the US) use Life+70.
Truth,
James
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depends on the picture I guess.
The one in the top-right corner of the wikipedia page, for example, clearly says "Public Domain" when you click on it.
|
|
|
|
|
Will the article really benefit from the images?
Can you draw him at all?
|
|
|
|
|
this is a good question. I just used this famous figure as an example to make my point...
diligent hands rule....
|
|
|
|
|
You could draw; you may have to attribute and say you copied.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
I am thinking of this way too. but my problem is that my painter draws so vividly that the final picture is even better than original one 
diligent hands rule....
|
|
|
|
|
As Daniel mentioned, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem holds all right, not only for the works of Einstein but also for name and likeness... And it is a living right despite Einstein died long ago, because the university does what has to be done to keep it live...
So you can be in trouble - probably depends on the spread of your article...
Quote: Albert Einstein & Hebrew University
Einstein was a founding member of Hebrew University.
Hebrew University has exclusive rights to his name, likeness, personal, and scientific writings.
"If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization." ― Gerald Weinberg
|
|
|
|
|
What you say is probably true within Israel. It is not true in Norway. Norwegian copyright laws have no option for 'renewing' copyright when 70 years has passed since the death of the creator. Then the copyright has expired. Period. In Norway, Norwegian laws apply.
Most European countries have copyright laws similar to those of Norway. There are some differences in the small details, and there are some modifications according to the Berne convention: E.g. if the copyright expires in the creator's homeland, it is considered expired in other countries as well. In USA, copyright expired 50 years after the death of the creator (I believe that has been changed to 70 today, though), so even if creator would have 20 years longer protection in European countries, those US creators whose work fell in the public domain in the US, did so in Europe as well.
As far as I know, Albert Einstein was never a citizen of Israel. So he gave (rather than sold) the rights to exploit his texts commercially to Hebrew University - that is like any other selling of commercial rights. Ordinary copyright laws (as well as patent laws) still apply.
|
|
|
|
|
![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.freetls.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
diligent hands rule....
|
|
|
|
|
In addition to what dandy72 said:
Quote: For any non-text media, you agree to comply with the applicable license under which the work has been made available (which can be discovered by clicking on the work and looking at the licensing section on its description page or reviewing an applicable source page for that work). When reusing any content that we host, you agree to comply with the relevant attribution requirements as they pertain to the underlying license or licenses
Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use - Wikimedia Foundation Governance Wiki[^]
So for this photo it says "Public Domain": Albert Einstein - Wikipedia[^]
But other pictures may have other licenses.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
