User Feedback :: Usage of murgaLua by DSL



Then:
Code Sample
Sources for binaries covered under GPL are available for $7 (to cover cost of media and shipping) from...

Here for all to see. Nothing more than a howto text file, excerpted from the README from the developers tarball.
Code Sample
EXPERIMENTS WITH THE FLTK TOOLKIT, LUA, AND MURGLUA IN DAMNSMALLLINUX (DSL)


MOTIVATION

   Goal of this experiment is to find a light alternative to the murgaLua
   static build for calling fltk from lua in DSL. And also trying to allow
   fltk to be used by C/C++ programs, not just by lua.

   The solution is to provide a standard lua interpreter, the fltk toolkit
   compiled as shared libraries, and compile the FLTK lua bindings from the
   murgaLua project as a separate lua extension which make use of the fltk
   libraries.


COMPILATION HOW-TO

   Binaries and libs and examples were compiled in DSL using 'compile-3.3.5' extension.
   Here's rough guidline if you want to do the compile the fltk,lua,murgalua stuff yourself, here's rough guideline:

   Compilation of Lua (5.1.3) distribution
       - in src/Makefile, change in CFLAGS the -O2 flag to -Os
       - 'make linux' and then make install INSTALL_TOP=/path/to/installation
   Compilation of fltk (1.1.9) distribution
       - ./configure --prefix=/path/to/installation --enable-shared --disable-xft --disable-gl --with-optim="-Os -fno-exception -fno-rtti"
       - make, and then make install
   Compilation of fltk binding from murgaLua distribution (0.6.8, murga-projects.com/files).
       - cd to src/ folder
       - g++ -Os -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -fpic -DLINUX -DLUA_USE_LINUX -I/path/to/lua_includes -Ipath/to/fltk_includes -c bind-fltk-ext.cxx
       - g++ -Os -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -shared -Wl,-soname,libmurgalua-fltk.so.0 -L/path/to/fltk_shared_libs -lftlk -lftlk_images -lflt_forms -lpng -o libmurgalua-fltk.so.0.6.8 ind-fltk-ext.o


As you can see not a single line of source code was changed.
All that is needed is this recipe.

I think the feelings involve a separate issue. Immediately prior to this fiasco, JM had complained on the Puppy board that Puppy wasn't using his code, noting DSL's useage of it. The response was rather cold, i,e, we don't need it. Then he discovered that DSL isn't using it either, except for adopting some fragments into another system.  I believe this was felt like a slap in the face,and thus the reaction.

Even Robert has expressed emotions at time for feeling that his efforts go largely unappreciated.  I don't see any benefit to all the name calling, etc. Let's acknowledge JM as a bright guy who has contributed lot's of time and good work (like Robert).  The language employed in this thread no doubt escalated the feelings and reactions.  

There's a time for working out trivial legal details (of little importance to the user), and a time for handling an issue with adult sensitivity.

Very interesting and relevant thread here (2005)
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=33

And some other relevant or semi-relevant links:
http://lucky13linux.wordpress.com/category/fsf-sucks/
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS4218186268.html
http://www.linux.com/articles/55285

@ roberts: it appears pretty amazing what he was able to accomplish at compile time.  I can't see any way how this is any different than what you did before, as far as the GPL is concerned.  If it were, then any time you changed a configure flag to compile a binary, you'd be in violation.

What jpeters said is very good.  Both Robert and JohnM put a lot of work into their projects, and it is understandable that feelings can get injured if you don't receive proper credit.

Next Page...
original here.