Talk:Panorama Tools/Archive 3

opinion and facts
The part "...some of the most professional and versatile..." was deleted with the comment (remove opinion and a linebreak). "Most professional" may be an opinion, but "most (or very) versatile" is an important information here since that was why IPIX presumably started their threats against Prof. Dersch. The fact that panotools (plus ptviewer) featured a way to present IPIX panoramas in a superior way (at no cost) seems to have triggered IPIX to make their laywers go against Mr. Dersch. It was just better as the commercial competition. Do we need a table with features comparing panotools, QTVRAS (Apple's panorama software at that time), IPIX, VRWorx (and maybe something else that was available at that time) to get "versatile" back into the sentence? IMHO panotools was and still is more versatile than other panorama software, that's why I use it. --Einemnet 17:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Verifiability, Citing sources. Thanks/wangi 18:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi wangi, thanks for having an eye on this article. I'm not sure if I interpret your minimalistic information correctly but I will try to find good sources for my above statement and cite that here on the discussion page. Let's see what I can find... :-) --Einemnet 18:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for speaking in codes ;) But yeah, find a source for "most versatile" and lets take it from there. Thanks/wangi 19:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

PanoTools goes LGPL
Thomas, Based on Helmut's announcement he is changing the GNU license to allow linking to his software without having to expose your application. He didn't change the license to LGPL. If you change pano12, you have to make the changes available to everyone. The only change is that he is now allowing linking without having to abide by the GNU requirements. He also said that this change is NOT retroactive and ALL software that used Panrama Tools prior to this license change is GNU by default. And that includes Pano2QTVR if you used any of Helmut's software. John Spikowski 18:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The post says:
 * I am planning to change the license for the PanoTools library (the files "pano12.lib" and "pano12.dll" apparently used by many programs) to the GNU-library license --Wuz 20:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't mean LGPL which is a different class of license altogether.

Why don't you wait till Helmut posts to his site the addendum to his GNU license before causing confusion with your version of what the license should be? John Spikowski 20:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

remove hint to LGPL

Thank You ! John Spikowski 20:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thomas, my apologies. It seems the term LGPL has a few different meanings depending on if it's a library or application.

This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General Public License instead of this License.

John Spikowski 20:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)