GP2X Open2x Libs: Commercial Games And Licenses

[Mudi]

I don't think anyone would care if it was an opensource app - people mix different libraries in this way without checking the licenses all the time.. it's a technical violation but is rarely if ever picked up upon (and not something I would bother about myself).

I remember a few years ago a pointless flamewar because of two incompatible open source licenses, specifically packaging GPL'd interMUD chat code with one of the old DikuMUD derivatives. It does in fact happen, though I find the whole thing incredibly stupid.

 

[nickspoon]

If you statically link with an LGPL library, the only thing you need to do is provide .o files to anyone who purchases the game (on request) so they can recompile it with new libs.

 

[Redeeman]

I don't think anyone would care if it was an opensource app - people mix different libraries in this way without checking the licenses all the time.. it's a technical violation but is rarely if ever picked up upon (and not something I would bother about myself).

I remember a few years ago a pointless flamewar because of two incompatible open source licenses, specifically packaging GPL'd interMUD chat code with one of the old DikuMUD derivatives. It does in fact happen, though I find the whole thing incredibly stupid.

people complaining about mixing of incompatible (license-wise) works arent stupid, the respective authors of the works release their work under a license THEY have chosen, and people has to act accordingly, after all, its the author that made it, he gets to choose license, and if other people dont agree with it, they are free to simply not use the work covered by such a license.

 

[BradN]

Yeah, I should have specified it's only OK to do object file only distribution for LGPL licensed code. If you link with plain GPL code, the whole thing must be GPL I believe.

 

[Mudi]

people complaining about mixing of incompatible (license-wise) works arent stupid, the respective authors of the works release their work under a license THEY have chosen, and people has to act accordingly, after all, its the author that made it, he gets to choose license, and if other people dont agree with it, they are free to simply not use the work covered by such a license.

OK, sorry, I didn't include all the details of this particular case. (Please realize this is all from memory as well, I hope it is mostly accurate)

The party who 'owned' the code that was under the GPL was aware of their code being included in the non-GPL source distribution, but did not make any complaints of their own, the complaints were brought by another party who was hoping to stir up a flamewar. The non-GPL license did not IMO reduce any of the rights given by the GPL, it simply requested that you notify the original authors that you were using their software by email... I at least do not consider this to be a problem, but some people do.

This, if anyone wants to know, is why I refuse to package any original piece of software I create as GPL. I find it far too restrictive about packaging with non-GPL packages. I tend to like the LGPL better, because it at least gives you a possible method to use it with non-compatible licenses and does keep the project open-source.

 

[BradN]

Another option always available is contacting the copyright owners and requesting a dual licensing. I would imagine a lot of projects would be receptive to the idea if it's for a good purpose.