I don't draw much anymore, but I need hardware to test egaku.io, the painting software I'm developing. I could buy a Wacom Intuos Pro or maybe something cheaper, since it's only for testing. I may need to buy other hardware too, since people are using all sorts of devices these days. I technically don't even have a budget for this until the Patreon grows a bit, but I have a feeling that no more pledges are going to be made there until I release some software... https://mastodon.art/media/s0ktXISM_XiyG7Nwmqc
@banjofox I've got a Cintiq 21X I bought off an old college peer. I have mixed feelings about it. It's great and I have been working larger because of it. but it's been really hard finding a good setup so that I don't feel physically drained or cramped working at it. Right now it's too high up and my keyboard is off to the side. I'm also more inclined to get my face right up to it which strains my eyes. Before it, I was using an Intuos 4 which was great tbh. I'd love a Surface Pro for on-the-go work, though.
@JigmeDatse Yes, the Patreon's here:
The site is here:
My situation as per today is that I'm working full-time as a developer for a company here in Norway, so I'm supporting myself that way, but that doesn't leave much time for developing my own software. I'm hoping I can grow this into something bigger over time, and maybe step down my daytime job.
@JigmeDatse Well, because most people will probably use this as a web service, and AGPL is tailored for that scenario. If someone else sets up an egaku-based web service and makes improvements to it, they'll have to share their improved source code, just as anyone distributing an improved version of a GPL desktop app would have to do. Additionally, GPLv3 and AGPLv3 both have a clause in them that's designed to make the two licenses mutually compatible.
@JigmeDatse If you're publishing binaries built from altered source code, GPL requires you to at least offer a way of getting a copy that altered source code. That's pretty much the main thing that sets GPL apart from other free software licenses. AGPL is the logical extension of that for SaaS.
@JigmeDatse Which, if worded more bluntly like I did, means that they both require you to share your improvements. The difference between that and what you said is semantics, because we both mean the same thing. I mean, we both know what these licenses do, so approximate language should be fine.
@thor It seems like I need to bone up on how these licenses have changed. Probably my best way is to read them. I'm not really very involved, as I think there is only one project where my name appears, and it appears in terms of QA. Well one project besides my personal ones, which sadly are very sad.
@JigmeDatse What you're describing sounds more like MIT or BSD licensing. I mean, the GPL was always designed to be a viral license that sort latches onto any code that touches it and forces it to also be licensed under the GPL, at least if binaries of the derivative code have been published. I suppose you could theoretically only share the binaries with select people, or people who pay for it, but that's a rather uncommon way of publishing GPL software.
@thor I think I may talk with others on this. I'm somewhat involved with a number of projects (most notably Matrix, and LedgerSMB) so could see what others think. Still, love your project. Wasn't intentionally meaning to be critical, but I think unintentionally my "hate the world" wanted to be critical. I'm sorry about that. I am going to close this for now, and give myself some space before coming back. Being far to mean to nice people.
@JigmeDatse As for ambition, I made a Java applet that did some of these things back in 2004. It was called Sketcher and was hosted on an art hosting site called ArtGrounds, also developed by me. I was 21 at the time and I'm 35 today. I'm not exactly intimidated by this sort of stuff.