31–40 of 40 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hi, the license is a temporary choice. I wish to release it under a permissive license in the future, I'd just like to secure a tiny bit of funding before that !
Investor funding or patronage?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GPL has great provisions against hostile forks, but as is it's a bit too restrictive for games as final products. I'd imagine that LGPL would give both an incentive to contribute to the engine , and a way to commercially release games based on it, without GPLing all the assets and all the game mechanics.
LGPL isn't great for games either. One of the most celebrated changes in SDL2 was moving from LGPL to ZLIB license. All the linking requirements of LGPL are a pain for games and distribution.
AFAICT, that license comes down to “You only need to publish changes to our GPL code, not your own code that uses our code”. So, it’s non-viral.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
LGPL isn't great for games either. One of the most celebrated changes in SDL2 was moving from LGPL to ZLIB license. All the linking requirements of LGPL are a pain for games and distribution.
Then how about “GPL with the static linking exception” (used by glibc, which is statically linked by zillions of non-open softwares). AFAICT, that license comes down to “You only need to publish changes to our GPL code, not your own code that uses our code”. So, it’s non-viral.
The LGPL is not viral but it has some requirements that are inconvenient when distributing a game, specially it makes static linking impossible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Investor funding or patronage?
I need to investigate this question :) For now, I just setup a Patreon, but in the future, I might think of a more clever business plan.
But for real, this looks great, I'll poke around it a bit more on the weekend, but it looks pretty darn good as it stands
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then how about “GPL with the static linking exception” (used by glibc, which is statically linked by zillions of non-open softwares). AFAICT, that license comes down to “You only need to publish changes to our GPL code, not your own code that uses our code”. So, it’s non-viral.
I think you meant "Lesser GPL with the static linking exception". IIRC glibc is "stock" LGPL 2.1 without any linking exception, so I may have misunderstood your comment and you mean just LGPL. The LGPL is not viral but it has some requirements that are inconvenient when distributing a game, specially it makes static linking impossible.
Looks like what I'm looking for can be found in MPLv2 https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/FAQ/
Ex: http://zeromq.org/area:licensing is currently LGPLw/exception, but intends to move to MPLv2 because it is legally more clear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding is a bit different, but also not a lawyer. > going from MIT to GPL is fine, but GPL to MIT is not AFAIK both are _not_ fine, eapecially because the licenses are totally incompatible. When you publish a patch under a certain license (that of the project at the moment of the contribution), you _only_ allow using your code under that license. This is why dual licensing is a thing. Except when you sign a…
> AFAIK both are _not_ fine, eapecially because the licenses are totally incompatible. MIT licensed code can be relicensed under GPL with or without modification to the code. It is only the other way around that won’t work. The reason for this are the specific demands made in each license. See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#GPLCompati... where the Expat license is listed as compatible. The Expat li…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AFAIK both are _not_ fine, eapecially because the licenses are totally incompatible. MIT licensed code can be relicensed under GPL with or without modification to the code. It is only the other way around that won’t work. The reason for this are the specific demands made in each license. See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#GPLCompati... where the Expat license is listed as compatible. The Expat li…
Possibly true... but wehther it can be done without modification to the code is a separate issue from whether a license change can be made without the consent of all contributors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding is a bit different, but also not a lawyer. > going from MIT to GPL is fine, but GPL to MIT is not AFAIK both are _not_ fine, eapecially because the licenses are totally incompatible. When you publish a patch under a certain license (that of the project at the moment of the contribution), you _only_ allow using your code under that license. This is why dual licensing is a thing. Except when you sign a…
> AFAIK both are _not_ fine, eapecially because the licenses are totally incompatible. MIT licensed code can be relicensed under GPL with or without modification to the code. It is only the other way around that won’t work. The reason for this are the specific demands made in each license. See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#GPLCompati... where the Expat license is listed as compatible. The Expat li…
Using a different license on the exact same code withoit consent is very different from linking to that code respeciting its original license.