Fizzy (formerly Pixi) - pixel art and animation editor

[foxnne]

Hello!

I have been a member of the zig community long enough to have some people in the community that have always been supportive of my work, and I just wanted to share my first early release.

https://fizzyed.it

I would love your feedback whether or not you are a pixel artist, on the website, or any piece of this as it’s been a massive learning experience from beginning to now.

Thanks!

[lalinsky]

I’m not really an artist that could use this effectively, but the app and the website looks amazing. Seems like a lot of work went into that. I’m really looking forward to trying this tomorrow.

[Anthon]

Congratulations on your first release. And innovative use of Italian domain name with that

I am not sure if that is supposed to be so, but the “highlighted” download in Firefox on my M1 Mac is for Windows. (Not that it is a problem, but nowadays quite often websites check the browser information and will highlight the platform, with the others as alternative downloads).

[gonzo]

For me it highlights Windows (vade retro!), but I am on (arch) Linux.

More importantly, the web site does look very stylish, and the application looks great!

[Southporter]

As a heads up, the wiki still calls it Pixi, especially the user guide. Might be good to update that.

[foxnne]

I really chose a poor time to rename, but honestly I had no plans of a release until I got the installers done a few days ago. Thanks! The entire user guide needs a revamp, and I’ll be focusing next on documentation and hopefully things like keybinds and making the app less confusing to use.

[foxnne]

Thanks! I absolutely need to fix that haha

[pierrelgol]

Damn this looks really good, Ive been working on an FTL inspired game, and your editor might just let me update my currently plain color squared texture with actual pixel art. So cool

[phatchman]

Congrats foxnne!

I’ve been following your work while working on DVUI and it’s been great to see all the updates you’ve done over the last year.

It looks absolutely fantastic. You’ve done an amazing job with it.

Was there a reason for changing the name? I was kinda fond of the name Pixi!

– Paul.

[AndrewKraevskii]

@phatchman

Was there a reason for changing the name? I was kinda fond of the name Pixi!

If I were to guess it would be existence of this pixel editor https://pixieditor.net/

[plaukiu]

shame about the rename. it was very cute, unique, and easy to remember.

[flow]

Congrats!

MIT license, you’re giving it away for free? Why not GPL for instance? Interested in the idea behind MIT.

[foxnne]

I’m not sure, I considered it but I’ve always been fond of the idea that it’s free for anyone

[foxnne]

yes, I agree, but I just can’t justify keeping the name when theres an editor called pixi so far ahead of mine already. I think fizzy embodies the spirit of the app, to be fun, full of movement and color, etc. and we have bubbles everywhere.

[flow]

I could fork your code and put a GPL stamp on it, then you can’t use my code in your MIT project.

My imaginary company could fork your project and make a closed source version out of it, then you can’t use their code.

If you release as GPL and someone contributes, you can’t re-license that code from copyleft to copyright, without agreement. You can still re-license your own code of course.

With MPL you’ve the first problem (could be forked to GPL) , but not the others I think.

[vancluever]

@flow

With MPL you’ve the first problem (could be forked to GPL) , but not the others I think.

Not necessarily, see MPL 2.0 FAQ — Mozilla, Q11:

How ‘viral’ is the MPL? If I use MPL-licensed code in my proprietary application, will I have to give all the source code away?

No. The license requires that Modifications (as defined in Section 1.10 of the license) must be licensed under the MPL and made available to anyone to whom you distribute the Source Code. However, new files containing no MPL-licensed code are not Modifications, and therefore do not need to be distributed under the terms of the MPL, even if you create a Larger Work (as defined in Section 1.7) by using, compiling, or distributing the non-MPL files together with MPL-licensed files. This allows, for example, programs using MPL-licensed code to be statically linked to and distributed as part of a larger proprietary piece of software, which would not generally be possible under the terms of stronger copyleft licenses.

And Q12:

How does the scope of the MPL’s copyleft compare with the LGPL and GPL’s copyleft?

Broadly speaking, the scope of the MPL, LGPL, and GPL can be summarized this way:

MPL: The copyleft applies to any files containing MPLed code.
LGPL: The copyleft applies to any library based on LGPLed code.
GPL: The copyleft applies to all software based on GPLed code. 

However, we would recommend reading the licenses to better understand their scope, and in particular, to understand how the LGPL and GPL define “based on.”

So, from my reading of this, my impression (and also as someone who uses the MPL himself) is that while a larger project could be GPL, any imports of source code and modifications to said MPL code would still need to be made available under the MPL. Of course, there’s lots of ways to work around this, but reasonably most of those entail the guarantee that if your work needs to be modified for that to happen (e.g., maybe more portability to enable better integration), that those modifications would need to be paid forward under the MPL.

[foxnne]

Okay, the project is now licensed under GPL-3.0, and added a CLA. Hopefully I did the right thing here?

[foxnne]

Thanks so much for the kind words! Yes I needed to differentiate from the other Pixi, I just wouldn’t ever be able to catch up I don’t think haha and the new name has grown on me

[xydone]

Looks really cute, love it!

[flow]

Ah a CLA. Does a CLA also applies to forks?

Not everyone will sign a CLA though:

Do not sign CLAs