7 ms·

Show HN: Gridifier – Dynamic grid layouts for real-time apps

69 points by szdszdszd 11y ago

rememberlenny 11y ago
This is pretty cool. Thank you!
ceejayoz 11y ago
> You can use Gridifier for free under the non-commercial license. Non-commercial license is valid only if you are creating non-profit and personal projects. In such cases Gridifier license is GPLv3. This is not how GPL works. By providing it as GPLv3, you've permitted people to redistribute it as they like under the GPLv3, including to themselves (and anyone else they feel like) for commercial purposes, as long as they themselves follow GPLv3's requirements.
- brazzledazzle 11y ago
  So it the cat out of the bag or can they claim it was a mistake and change the license ex post facto?
  - szdszdszd 11y ago
    "Any use of Gridifier for a commercial purpose is subject to and requires a commercial license. With commercial license GPLv3 license terms are not used. Instead of that, terms described on developer license page are applyied." That means, that if product is being used for commercial purposes, GPLv3 license rules are not applied.
    - ceejayoz 11y ago
      > That means, that if product is being used for commercial purposes, GPLv3 license rules are not applied. Except GPL section 7 says I can ignore your non-commercial restriction. If you want to restrict commercial use, you must pick a different license. GPL won't work.
    - justifier 11y ago
      here is the full text for you to examine http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt another post mentions section seven: Additional Terms; i had to look it up to check the commentator's assertion i'd suggest explaining in clear terms what you would like to achieve with the licensing of your work i am sure the people here would be happy to help you find an agreeable license another resource: http://choosealicense.com/licenses/ http://choosealicense.com/licenses/
      - szdszdszd 11y ago
        Ok, I have read section 7 one more time and debates over the internet. As I see many users are unhappy with such type of dual licensing. Which scheme will be perfectly clear for everyone? Will http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ for non-commercial/ developer license for commercial be ok for everyone?
        brazzledazzle 11y ago
        Unless you're a contract lawyer I would always default to assuming the least beneficial outcome for yourself when something isn't clear cut.
        szdszdszd 11y ago
        Switched to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
    - brazzledazzle 11y ago
      I think there are better licenses for the "want your cake and eat it too" scenario.
  - iheartmemcache 11y ago
    Not a contract lawyer, but close enough friends with people who are attorneys at the EFF. Once it enters the public domain under the GPL terms, even if you dual license it with a caveat for commercial use, if a binary is released either licensed as, or containing elements of code licensed as, the GPL, it remains under the GPL. Hence why the GPL has a reputation of being "infectious". Ultimately, you'll have attorneys arguing over the semantics of the wording such as: >> "For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code... plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable." e.g., does this include any binaries produced using the GCC toolset? Commonly agreed as no. What if you bundle a Linux distribution - in a binary fashion - that contains the Linux kernel (Oracle Linux, which is indisputably GPL[1], containing the Oracle Unbreakable Kernel (including components of dtrace (indisputably BSD) + ksplice (definitively GPL, and GPLv2 for that matter) which are tightly coupled into the kernel?). People have been court ordered to release their source-code for distributing proprietary software released to the public for using BusyBee as their hardware's base. Oracle has a bigger bankroll than the average corporation. It could be argued either way until the cows come home but until a court decision is made setting precedent, it remains fairly undetermined. I'd feel more than comfortable using a revision of something that was released, accidentally or not, under the GPL for my product in a commercial setting. But I'd certainly have to comply with any requests for access to the source-code if they come about. (A common misconception is that you have to make the source readily available, e.g. on Github, but you only have to make it available upon request to the requestee.) [1] http://www.oracle.com/us/technologies/027617.pdf http://www.oracle.com/us/technologies/027617.pdf for a very carefully worded read if you want to see lawyers and PR people unify in a beautiful exhibit of linguistic acrobatics
    - brazzledazzle 11y ago
      >(A common misconception is that you have to make the source readily available, e.g. on Github, but you only have to make it available upon request to the requestee.) Correct me if I'm wrong–but to be more specific, my recollection is that the only requester that you are obligated to provide source to is whoever you've distributed binaries to. Of course, they're permitted to distribute it as they please so the distinction may be largely irrelevant.
  - Natanael_L 11y ago
    Anybody with an existing copy acquired under GPL can claim it has to be honored, and courts would likely agree
- semi-extrinsic 11y ago
  Huh, TIL. Out of curiosity, is there a license that would allow them to be FOSS only for non-commercial use, but having customers pay for commercial use, like they want?
  - ceejayoz 11y ago
    No, placing such restrictions makes it neither free nor open source. It'd be "shared source", perhaps.
  - hardwaresofton 11y ago
    Can someone please point to some credible source with a clear explanation how of how you're supposed to license F/OSS for profit? I can't figure it out.
    - ceejayoz 11y ago
      Support and additional services. For example, WordPress.com does pretty well, despite the codebase being GPLed. Same for RedHat - they're quite successful despite all their packages being available via CentOS, because of paid support subscriptions, certifications, etc.
      - hardwaresofton 11y ago
        But what about companies like highcharts? Just answered my own question: http://shop.highsoft.com/highcharts.html http://shop.highsoft.com/highcharts.html
        ceejayoz 11y ago
        Yep. Creative Commons isn't FOSS.
    - detaro 11y ago
      Or assume that GPL is painful enough (or for server code AGPL) that companies would rather pay for a license than dealing with it. (Especially browser JS is something where you'll find gigantic discussions about exactly how far GPL infects other code)
lobster_johnson 11y ago
Looks nice, but I use React. Anyone know of something comparable for React?
- _felics 11y ago
  This library seems to provide most of the functionality: https://github.com/STRML/react-grid-layout https://github.com/STRML/react-grid-layout
  - watty 11y ago
    Except the author hang had a stable release in months. Apparently is working on a rewrite but is doing so privately despite several offering support.
- szdszdszd 11y ago
  Gridifier was designed specially for use with Backbone/Angular/React. We were using Backbone for our apps, but we will definitely look how to sync it with Angular/React. It was too heavy BTW - so the most logical step was to rewrite it completely at first, and after that start creating tutorials+codepens.
  - lobster_johnson 11y ago
    React operates completely differently from Backbone and Angular. I've looked only briefly at your code, but it looks like it operates directly on the DOM, which is not going to work with React.
    - szdszdszd 11y ago
      Hmmm, I haven't tried React yet. Yeah, now it operates directly on the DOM, but all functions for DOM manipulation are located in separate class, so maybe we will try hook them somehow. Looked at React docs really quickly, it seems they have been abstracted away DOM manipulation to prevent unnecessary browser reflow/recalc ops. So, I can't predict now how easily it will be to sync it with React.(we will try to do it)
nvartolomei 11y ago
Can someone point at examples of real time apps where this will be useful?

69 points by szdszdszd 11y ago

This is pretty cool. Thank you!

> You can use Gridifier for free under the non-commercial license. Non-commercial license is valid only if you are creating non-profit and personal projects. In such cases Gridifier license is GPLv3. This is not how GPL works. By providing it as GPLv3, you've permitted people to redistribute it as they like under the GPLv3, including to themselves (and anyone else they feel like) for commercial purposes, as long as they themselves follow GPLv3's requirements.

brazzledazzle 11y ago
So it the cat out of the bag or can they claim it was a mistake and change the license ex post facto?
- szdszdszd 11y ago
  "Any use of Gridifier for a commercial purpose is subject to and requires a commercial license. With commercial license GPLv3 license terms are not used. Instead of that, terms described on developer license page are applyied." That means, that if product is being used for commercial purposes, GPLv3 license rules are not applied.
  - ceejayoz 11y ago
    > That means, that if product is being used for commercial purposes, GPLv3 license rules are not applied. Except GPL section 7 says I can ignore your non-commercial restriction. If you want to restrict commercial use, you must pick a different license. GPL won't work.
  - justifier 11y ago
    here is the full text for you to examine http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt another post mentions section seven: Additional Terms; i had to look it up to check the commentator's assertion i'd suggest explaining in clear terms what you would like to achieve with the licensing of your work i am sure the people here would be happy to help you find an agreeable license another resource: http://choosealicense.com/licenses/ http://choosealicense.com/licenses/
    - szdszdszd 11y ago
      Ok, I have read section 7 one more time and debates over the internet. As I see many users are unhappy with such type of dual licensing. Which scheme will be perfectly clear for everyone? Will http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ for non-commercial/ developer license for commercial be ok for everyone?
      - brazzledazzle 11y ago
        Unless you're a contract lawyer I would always default to assuming the least beneficial outcome for yourself when something isn't clear cut.
      - szdszdszd 11y ago
        Switched to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
  - brazzledazzle 11y ago
    I think there are better licenses for the "want your cake and eat it too" scenario.
- iheartmemcache 11y ago
  Not a contract lawyer, but close enough friends with people who are attorneys at the EFF. Once it enters the public domain under the GPL terms, even if you dual license it with a caveat for commercial use, if a binary is released either licensed as, or containing elements of code licensed as, the GPL, it remains under the GPL. Hence why the GPL has a reputation of being "infectious". Ultimately, you'll have attorneys arguing over the semantics of the wording such as: >> "For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code... plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable." e.g., does this include any binaries produced using the GCC toolset? Commonly agreed as no. What if you bundle a Linux distribution - in a binary fashion - that contains the Linux kernel (Oracle Linux, which is indisputably GPL[1], containing the Oracle Unbreakable Kernel (including components of dtrace (indisputably BSD) + ksplice (definitively GPL, and GPLv2 for that matter) which are tightly coupled into the kernel?). People have been court ordered to release their source-code for distributing proprietary software released to the public for using BusyBee as their hardware's base. Oracle has a bigger bankroll than the average corporation. It could be argued either way until the cows come home but until a court decision is made setting precedent, it remains fairly undetermined. I'd feel more than comfortable using a revision of something that was released, accidentally or not, under the GPL for my product in a commercial setting. But I'd certainly have to comply with any requests for access to the source-code if they come about. (A common misconception is that you have to make the source readily available, e.g. on Github, but you only have to make it available upon request to the requestee.) [1] http://www.oracle.com/us/technologies/027617.pdf http://www.oracle.com/us/technologies/027617.pdf for a very carefully worded read if you want to see lawyers and PR people unify in a beautiful exhibit of linguistic acrobatics
  - brazzledazzle 11y ago
    >(A common misconception is that you have to make the source readily available, e.g. on Github, but you only have to make it available upon request to the requestee.) Correct me if I'm wrong–but to be more specific, my recollection is that the only requester that you are obligated to provide source to is whoever you've distributed binaries to. Of course, they're permitted to distribute it as they please so the distinction may be largely irrelevant.
- Natanael_L 11y ago
  Anybody with an existing copy acquired under GPL can claim it has to be honored, and courts would likely agree
semi-extrinsic 11y ago
Huh, TIL. Out of curiosity, is there a license that would allow them to be FOSS only for non-commercial use, but having customers pay for commercial use, like they want?
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  No, placing such restrictions makes it neither free nor open source. It'd be "shared source", perhaps.
- hardwaresofton 11y ago
  Can someone please point to some credible source with a clear explanation how of how you're supposed to license F/OSS for profit? I can't figure it out.
  - ceejayoz 11y ago
    Support and additional services. For example, WordPress.com does pretty well, despite the codebase being GPLed. Same for RedHat - they're quite successful despite all their packages being available via CentOS, because of paid support subscriptions, certifications, etc.
    - hardwaresofton 11y ago
      But what about companies like highcharts? Just answered my own question: http://shop.highsoft.com/highcharts.html http://shop.highsoft.com/highcharts.html
      - ceejayoz 11y ago
        Yep. Creative Commons isn't FOSS.
  - detaro 11y ago
    Or assume that GPL is painful enough (or for server code AGPL) that companies would rather pay for a license than dealing with it. (Especially browser JS is something where you'll find gigantic discussions about exactly how far GPL infects other code)

lobster_johnson 11y ago

Looks nice, but I use React. Anyone know of something comparable for React?

_felics 11y ago
This library seems to provide most of the functionality: https://github.com/STRML/react-grid-layout https://github.com/STRML/react-grid-layout
- watty 11y ago
  Except the author hang had a stable release in months. Apparently is working on a rewrite but is doing so privately despite several offering support.
szdszdszd 11y ago
Gridifier was designed specially for use with Backbone/Angular/React. We were using Backbone for our apps, but we will definitely look how to sync it with Angular/React. It was too heavy BTW - so the most logical step was to rewrite it completely at first, and after that start creating tutorials+codepens.
- lobster_johnson 11y ago
  React operates completely differently from Backbone and Angular. I've looked only briefly at your code, but it looks like it operates directly on the DOM, which is not going to work with React.
  - szdszdszd 11y ago
    Hmmm, I haven't tried React yet. Yeah, now it operates directly on the DOM, but all functions for DOM manipulation are located in separate class, so maybe we will try hook them somehow. Looked at React docs really quickly, it seems they have been abstracted away DOM manipulation to prevent unnecessary browser reflow/recalc ops. So, I can't predict now how easily it will be to sync it with React.(we will try to do it)

nvartolomei 11y ago

Can someone point at examples of real time apps where this will be useful?