Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Xara LX forked to replace rendering engine

Filed under

The Xara LX vector graphics editor took a big step forward last week. After months of gridlock between open source contributors to the project and its corporate owners, one of the contributors published his own fork of the code base -- and the company approved, offering to host it in the official Subversion repository.

The stalemate stemmed from Xara's decision to exclude a single library from its GPL source code release. That library, CDraw, is the rendering engine responsible for rasterizing the workspace contents and drawing it to the screen during an editing session. Xara is very proud of the speed and quality of CDraw, to the point where it cites CDraw's speed as the chief advantage of the product over its competition. But the company feared that releasing the source code to CDraw would constitute giving up its competitive advantage. Thus when it launched the open source Xara LX project, Xara bundled it with a binary-only CDraw -- but one explicitly licensed as freely redistributable.

Outside contributors expressed reluctance to invest time in the Xara LX project, citing dependency on the non-free CDraw as the reason. The project languished, each of the two camps seemingly of the opinion that the other was not holding up its end of the deal -- the coders regarding Xara's partial source code release as insufficient and Xara finding the coders' contributions insignificant.

Full Story.

More in Tux Machines

Mir 0.8 Works On Less ABI Breakage, Touchspots, Responsiveness

While Ubuntu 14.10 on the desktop isn't using Mir by default, Mir 0.8.0 is being prepared for release by Canonical and it has a number of interesting changes. Read more

Open source history, present day, and licensing

Looking at open source softwares particularly, this is a fact that is probably useful to you if you are thinking about business models, many people don't care about it anymore. We talk about FOSS, Free and Open Source Software, but if we really are strict there's a difference between free software and open source software. On the left, I have free software which most typically is GPL software. Software where the license insures freedom. It gives freedoms to you as a user, but it also requires that the freedoms are maintained. On the right-hand side, you have open source software which is open for all, but it also allows you to close it. So here we come back to the famous clause of the GPL license, the reciprocity requirement which says, "If I am open, you need to be open." So software that comes under the GPL license carries with it something that other people call a virus. I call it a blessing because I think it's great if all software becomes open. Read more

Mozilla Wants to Save the Open Web, but is it Too Late?

Again, I think this is absolutely correct. But what it fails to recognise is that one of the key ways of making the Web medium "less free and open" is the use of legally-protected DRM. DRM is the very antithesis of openness and of sharing. And yet, sadly, as I reported back in May, Mozilla has decided to back adding DRM to the Web, starting first with video (but it won't end there...) This means Mozilla's Firefox is itself is a vector of attack against openness and sharing, and undermines its own lofty goals in the Open Web Fellows programme. Read more

Open source is starting to make a dent in proprietary software fortunes

Open source has promised to unseat proprietary competitors for decades, but the cloud may make the threat real. Read more