Bajusz Tamás (btami) asked Jan Ischebeck (siesel) about i18n (unicode default) changes to forms status. Jan said its allmost ready, just some small parts still have to made ready f.e. the way database encodings are set. Jan still hadn't worked on "unicodification" of GParser entities f.e. the "name" type should be converted to unicode, because it's used for labels etc. Also, as he was planning to commit some of the unicode changes to forms etc. Because common is changed to, some parts of reports possibly won't work as expected so it will be like the _() i18n changes i.e. there will be much to be fixed problems, which I can't check for, because I don't use reports regualary. I think, that now (after 0.5.1) is the time for changes like that, so I just want to ask if you have objections or what do you think about it. The changes basically should affect the return type for strings is unicode instead of string when doing database access. It could made optional, so that f.e. gnue-pos can keep using normal string. Jan promised to talk about this more later.

Bajusz Tamás (btami) asked whether applications written with the GNUe tools would have to be GPL-ed (i.e. released under the GNU General Public License). Reinhard Müller (reinhard) said no - of course you would not even _want_ to write proprietary software - but if you really want, you can write prop software with gnue. He explained only the tools are gpl - so you have to provide the source for gnue-forms, gnue-common etc. James Thompson (jamest) said you can make prop forms, reports, etc - but you couldn't embed gnue-common in your app.

However, as Reinhard noted, in practice, i don't see how you would hide the source of a form from your user ;-) James suggested i wonder if a person could do a pgp type setup w/ forms/reports/etc - so that forms could be encrypted w/ a private key - and the public key distributed with app.

Tamás said that he personally would prefer to release applications he wrote under the GPL, but his company would need to be convinced of the benefits of this. Reinhard saud the main benefit is getting back imporvements from the community - this is for example what i experienced with you last week with your fixes to appserver :) Also, opening up the source reduced the reliance on key individuals - this was especially significant for smaller software houses.

Also, don't forget you don't have to open the source code to the world - you just have to open it to your customer - and let him open it to whomever he likes. Most customers will probably keep it to themselves anyway. The gpl doesn't say you have to give your code to anyone - you can keep it all for yourself if you like - but _when_ you give it away, you have to 1. give the source code, too 2. let the receiver give it to any 3rd persons he wants under the same conditions. So it might be totally normal to write code under gpl - and give it only to a single customer. There was no requirement under GPL to make the source available to all and sundry, for example by putting it on an anonymous CVS service like savannah. der.hans (LuftHans) noted also, technically you don't have to give the source code to your customers, you just have to make it available to them. Reinhard agreed - i provide a "written offer" myself instead of the source code when installing Debian GNU/Linux for clients.

Bajusz Tamás (btami) asked what is the correct way if i fix a packaging error for the stand-alone Windows 32 version of the GNUe Tools and build a new setup exe? James Thompson (jamest) suggested gut tells me we should re-release w/ new point number - 0.5.2. Jason Cater (jcater) was not so sure - even if it's just a packaging error? Tamás confirmed the designers toolbar wizards doesn't work in setup exe - just a packaging error. Jeff Bailey (jbailey) suggested add a .1 to the end. James felt 0.5.1.1 is fine too - but I think we need way to mark the diff. Mike Vincent (Vee) suggested designating it as 0.5.1-1, but Jeff pointed out that Versions with -'s are used by GNU/Linux distributions such as Debian to signify different packages of the same underlying version of an application, so unless all win32 versions are going to start -1, -2 for sub releases, it will just get confusing..