5 ms·
Another Rust terminal emulator project, notty[1], aims to do this. Downthread the author mentions that the projects are looking at collaborating. [1]: https://
by dragonne 10y ago
Another Rust terminal emulator project, notty[1], aims to do this. Downthread the author mentions that the projects are looking at collaborating.
[1]: https://github.com/withoutboats/notty https://github.com/withoutboats/notty
- brandur 10y agoThat's really cool and their README gives some great background. Thanks!
- tatterdemalion 10y agonotty author here. notty is basically way down a yakstack for me - I wanted better CLI/TUI tools, so I wanted to write a framework for writing CLI/TUI tools, but some of the features I wanted aren't supported by terminals, so I started writing a new terminal. But I don't know anything about graphics programming & this is really far away from what I actually wanted to be doing - so when jwilm showed me alacritty & mentioned implementing notty with it I was pretty stoked.
- xxpor 10y agoIt's too bad notty is licenced under the AGPL. That basically guarantees 0 usage at any sort of bigco.
- nopreserveroot 10y agoThat is not how Copyleft software licenses work at all. All the AGPL gurantees is that 'Bigco' must contribute back to the community any modifications they make to the software.
- arandomcoder 10y agoExactly! How many bigco's have a terminal emulator incorporated into a product? If you're just using this to run tmux, vim, etc. the AGPL's strengthened sharing provisions aren't going to affect you at all :-)
- dekhn 10y agoThe AGPL is different from the GPL. The AGPL prevents use at my Bigco (Google) for a number of good reasons.
- nopreserveroot 10y agoThat's company policy and not the fault of the license. EDIT: Unless you're making modifications to the software, the AGPL does not apply. EDIT2: http://www.affero.org/oagf.html#How_does_this_license_treat_commercial http://www.affero.org/oagf.html#How_does_this_license_treat_... Specifically, the question, "How does this license treat commercial enterprise use over intranets and internal networks?"
- twic 10y agoIs that true? My understanding of the AGPL was that any software product which uses it as a component becomes subject to the AGPL - it has the linking semantics of the GPL, not the LGPL. If that's not the case, please do disabuse me of my misconception!
- comex 10y agoYes, it is like the GPL. But in this case, where the product is a standalone application, that distinction shouldn't matter unless you're actually planning on bundling it into your own product somehow.
- dekhn 10y agoI think your understanding of the AGPL (specfically) is in error.
- nopreserveroot 10y agoSee EDIT2 on my post.
- xxpor 10y ago>That's company policy Yes. I was just pointing out that regardless of modification/distribution/whatever, bigco policy is to not allow ANY AGPL code within a 10 mile radius of any computer owned by said company. The author(s) are free to use AGPL, but there are significant downsides if they care about adoption.
- smsm42 10y agoThat may be the theory, the practice is that the policy of many companies with regard to integrating *GPL code is "not with a ten-foot stick".
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- janekm 10y agoI think you make a good point in this instance, so I upvoted. The follow-on discussion establishes the policy of big-cos pretty well and I don't think Alacritty much benefits from the AGPL since actual integration into other software base is unlikely (except for some of the sub-libs perhaps, but personally I feel that fundamental libraries flourish better under less-restrictive licenses anyway)