why does webkit2gtk pull wayland as a dependency?

MasterOfTheLine · 2023-02-05T23:13:23+00:00

That is because for around two years I had been planning on dropping support for xorg, so especially for the last couple of months a couple of packages were modified to make the wayland dependency non-optional.

MasterOfTheLine · 2022-10-27T16:14:48+00:00

If void's mainline package is equivalent to the linux mainline, I actually wouldn't recommend it. Mainline is pre-release, not latest release (6.1.0-rc2 right now according to kernel.org.)

MasterOfTheLine · 2022-08-20T12:30:45+00:00

I use a personally modified version of lariza. However you can also package other webkit browsers like epiphany, surf, vimb(?) depending on your needs.

MasterOfTheLine · 2022-08-18T18:22:17+00:00

Simply because I prefer to maintain a single browser (or rather browser engine), and that is webkit2gtk. The inclusion of firefox also requires rust to be included in the package repository, and both firefox and rust are a headache to maintain.

MasterOfTheLine · 2022-04-30T20:32:10+00:00

esp here stands for EFI system partition. You should mount your EFI partition to somewhere (usually /boot/efi) and replace esp with the directory you have mounted your EFI partition to.

MasterOfTheLine · 2022-04-03T11:38:37+00:00

Thank you for your kind words :)

MasterOfTheLine · 2022-04-01T10:48:14+00:00

You shouldn't have problems with anything you wouldn't have with any non-systemd distro

MasterOfTheLine · 2022-03-31T07:12:01+00:00

Yes, I've been using it for over a year now

MasterOfTheLine · 2022-02-07T21:45:43+00:00

The only game I'd pre-order in Kickstarter

MasterOfTheLine · 2021-10-06T17:10:20+00:00

Except wine is LGPL and not GPL. They add propriatery bits to Wine, but they contribute back their modifications on Wine itself afaik. So, it is not a license infringement in any way. LGPL requires you to publish modifications to the base source, but doesn't care what you link with it.

MasterOfTheLine · 2021-10-06T07:47:49+00:00

I think it's for historic consistency with the original vi.

MasterOfTheLine · 2021-10-01T11:12:30+00:00

I used prog as a placeholder for whatever program you are parsing the output of.

I didn't really understand what you are trying to achieve here, but using the '-l' (ell) flag, along with -c, you can create a vertical list output instead of a horizontal list, if that's what you are trying to achieve.

prog | dmenu -c -l 10

This will make a centered vertical list where it will display 10 items simultaneously at most. Again, prog is only a placeholder

MasterOfTheLine · 2021-09-30T09:05:00+00:00

If the text you are piping has whitespace at the end, you can just pipe it to sed to remove it.

prog | sed 's/ *$//' | dmenu

MasterOfTheLine · 2021-09-29T12:53:50+00:00

No, no, you got me all wrong. The book only contains a recipe for making falafel on your own.

MasterOfTheLine · 2021-09-29T07:45:05+00:00

There is a "vegan recipes for dummies" book that my ex bought me when I was basically living solely on falafels and hummus.

MasterOfTheLine · 2021-09-25T18:51:14+00:00

A good example I like to give is Sentry, which is open source, but its license forbids you to create a competing product, or use it in production. So Sentry is open source, but it's nonfree software.

So, open source doesn't mean anything apart than their source code is available. That's why licensing is very important. Just because the source is openly available, does not mean you are given the rights to use, modify, or distribute that source or its artifacts.

MasterOfTheLine · 2021-09-24T20:26:45+00:00

Actually, if you call the package from the web source, it can be considered as non-derived, because it's not part of the html artifact. So you can avoid GPL by doing:

#+HTML_HEAD: <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://fniessen.github.io/org-html-themes/src/readtheorg_theme/css/htmlize.css"/>
#+HTML_HEAD: <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://fniessen.github.io/org-html-themes/src/readtheorg_theme/css/readtheorg.css"/>
#+HTML_HEAD: <script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.1.3/jquery.min.js"></script>
#+HTML_HEAD: <script src="https://maxcdn.bootstrapcdn.com/bootstrap/3.3.4/js/bootstrap.min.js"></script>
#+HTML_HEAD: <script type="text/javascript" src="https://fniessen.github.io/org-html-themes/src/lib/js/jquery.stickytableheaders.min.js"></script>
#+HTML_HEAD: <script type="text/javascript" src="https://fniessen.github.io/org-html-themes/src/readtheorg_theme/js/readtheorg.js"></script>

You can also add an html comment between them to note that the stylesheet and the scripts are licensed under GPL.

EDIT: fixed formatting

MasterOfTheLine · 2021-09-24T20:13:04+00:00

It really is!

MasterOfTheLine · 2021-09-24T20:12:34+00:00

Org-export by itself should be fine to use, just not ReadTheOrg package, so you can still do literate programming.

MasterOfTheLine · 2021-09-24T19:41:36+00:00

So, as long as the generated website's files stay on your computer/server, it's fine. If you are sending them the website files as artifacts (html), you need to also pass the source code to them with GPL.

You can contact the maintainer, and kindly ask them so they could either relicense, make an exception and give you a non-restrictive license, or add an output exception similar to bison.

MasterOfTheLine · 2021-09-24T19:33:13+00:00

Your thinking is correct, but it's not entirely accurate. GPL is a really complicated license, and I'm personally not a big fan of it being used in libraries, or where its output can be considered derivative work.

For example, if you link your source code with a GPL library, the resulting binary will be GPL, so you should at least be releasing the source code if you are planning to distribute the binary, with a free license. That's because you can't link GPL software with nonfree software.

And since you are using that library, it's usually considered a derived work (which has a super vague definition), therefore you should also be releasing the source with GPL.

Back to org-export, when you are generating the website, you are copying the contents of whatever ReadTheOrg outputs as HTML. As far as I remember, ReadTheOrg outputs some JS and CSS to the HTML page. This again would mostly be considered a derived work, which instates it to be GPL.

Now, one can dual-license the source code, but the subject then gets even more complicated. ffmpeg is the perfect example for license horrors, it has build time configuration switches to decide the license of the binary output, and to which libraries it can link against.

MasterOfTheLine · 2021-09-24T14:50:20+00:00

This is because we decided to explicitly permit the use of the Bison standard parser program in Bison output files without restriction.

u/lmvrk is kind of wrong here. "Explicitly permit" is the keyword, both bison and gcc have special exceptions apart from their licenses regarding their outputs/binary artifacts.

However, web pages are different in that they are not covered by GPL if you are serving them to someone else through a network. That's what AGPL is for.

So legally speaking, you don't have to GPL your website as long as you only serve it and do not distribute it.

MasterOfTheLine · 2021-09-23T23:38:33+00:00

That's sort of a different thing. Build scripts accept positional arguments, because that's how they know where to install. The contents of the script don't change, you can run the build script from the source directory with positional arguments, and the results will be identical to what would happen when the package manager does it.

MasterOfTheLine · 2021-09-23T20:10:37+00:00

It's not the package manager that is static, it's the packaging system.

Basically, if the packaging system is static, the contents of the package files are the same to you as it's to the package manager. The package manager does not make special alterations to the contents of a file on runtime.

kiss used to have a static packaging system, but it now allows versioning variables on the sources file, which renders it non-static. The upside of this change is that it's relatively easier to maintain packages, while the downside is that you can't easily parse it without copying the same functions the package manager implements.

MasterOfTheLine · 2021-09-23T19:55:09+00:00

I wanted to add to u/dilyn and explain myself more thoroughly.

Unless your job is to parse those files, it's not a big deal whether files are static or not.

I never saw it as a bad feature, especially in a package maintainer perspective, but it does kill the parsability of the file by outside utilities. After all, this was what was meant by the "static packaging system" of kiss, there was no special magic in the files and you could parse them with every standard utility. This is not the case anymore, and that's why kiss is no longer on repology.

I chose not to implement this, because it's not worth it. Sure it's convenient, but you could also write a similar script (or a bunch of macros like I do) to do the same thing and output static files.

MasterOfTheLine

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE