I don't know what I've said or done to upset you daniu, but you seem determined to assume the worst about me and interpret everything I say in the worst possible light.
That was clearly an enquiry into how Symphony could be used, not how it works. I answered accordingly and I assume the user was happy with my response since they did not request further clarification. To my knowledge nobody had enquired as to the technical details before you complained that I had not provided them. Furthermore, it is my experience that people generally do not care how a tool works, as long as it does indeed work. Consequently I don't usually take the time to format and present said details unless someone requests them.
If you don't wish to do so then that is, of course, your perogative. I merely pointed out that is was permissible.
Applications spawning additional processes in order to perform a section of work is nothing new. Your IDE does it, your internet browser almost certainly does it, even Shogun 2 does it. As I said, it's up to you how your application behaves, but please don't insinuate that my suggestion was in some way inappropriate or unrealistic. Since you do not want to invoke an external application from PFM, would you be happier if I provided a variant of Symphony as a dll?
It certainly wasn't intended as an insult. I know professionals who aren't up to speed with the latest C++ features and would probably stuggle with elements of my code. However, if you believe you could cope with it then fine, I will accept that.
I did not use anybody else's tools in the development of Symphony. If I had I would have asked their permission and credited them. I figured out how pack files work by reverse-engineering the files and reading information posted publicly by The Creative Assembly.
You're probably right, there probably isn't anything in my source that would prevent me from releasing. But you'll note I didn't say that there was. I said I would have to check. I know everything in my various libaries and code snippets are releasable in executable form because I don't add anything to my respositories that does not meet this requirement. However, this is the only thing I check. I do not know the licensing requirements for a source code release of everything in my repositories, and I'm not about to open myself to liability without thorougly checking first. In fact, having just checked the Boost license I find this:
If I had released and had not checked this license I would have been breaking the terms of the Boost license.Excerpt from Boost Software License
The copyright notices in the Software and this entire statement, including
the above license grant, this restriction and the following disclaimer,
must be included in all copies of the Software, in whole or in part, and
all derivative works of the Software, unless such copies or derivative
works are solely in the form of machine-executable object code generated by
a source language processor.
What concrete information would you like?
Fair enough, but I have listed my reasons for not releasing my source and while you have addressed one, the other three still remain.
I don't consider it a 'locked door' solution. It is a fairly standard software license and in fact much more open than most since it permits unlimited distribution. It's not an open-source license because I am not distributing my source - for the reasons explained previously.





Reply With Quote











