Horde3D

Next-Generation Graphics Engine
It is currently 29.03.2024, 07:10

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: License
PostPosted: 06.02.2009, 11:43 
Offline
Tool Developer

Joined: 13.11.2007, 11:07
Posts: 1150
Location: Germany
I'm not a Lawyer, but if I add the necessary code in egExtensions.cpp to register my extension in Horde3D, does it become a non splittable part of the engine because I can't compile it anymore without having the extension? Of course that's not what we intend to have.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: License
PostPosted: 06.02.2009, 14:00 
Offline

Joined: 22.11.2007, 17:05
Posts: 707
Location: Boston, MA
Volker wrote:
I'm not a Lawyer, but if I add the necessary code in egExtensions.cpp to register my extension in Horde3D, does it become a non splittable part of the engine because I can't compile it anymore without having the extension? Of course that's not what we intend to have.
I was going to suggest that we boost the extension registration up to the application layer, create a Horde3D::RegisterExtension(), which is called by Horde3DTerrain::RegisterSelf(), which can be called by the application if they want the terrain extension.

marciano wrote:
I would add to your list that a project needs to clearly state that it uses Horde3D but that's a small thing.
Good point - though we want to be careful of the BSD trap.

Quote:
The open question is: which modifications should go back to the engine. We can either just say solely extensions can be linked statically without having to release their source (could be LGPL with your exception from the Starfall thread) or we can make it more open and say that only existing files that were modified need to be given back (that's my custom license proposal). The second option would allow any static linking. For example, the difference would be: a new D3D10 renderer that someone implements in Horde would need to be open sourced with the first option (LGPL + extension exception) while it usually could stay closed with the second one. With the extension exception we can exactly control which things need to be given back (hence the things which do not go through our extension mechanism). I don't know yet which license would be better.
My inclination is that something as fundamental as a renderer back-end should be released as part of the core - it would be of massive benefit to the whole community.

The extensions on the other hand need to have the possibility of being closed source (although I expect most to be released anyway) - imagine if someone wants to write a SpeedTree extension.

So my preliminary though is that we need a limited attribution, weak copyleft license with an exception for extension modules?

_________________
Tristam MacDonald - [swiftcoding]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: License
PostPosted: 09.02.2009, 03:44 
Offline

Joined: 08.11.2006, 03:10
Posts: 384
Location: Australia
swiftcoder wrote:
marciano wrote:
I would add to your list that a project needs to clearly state that it uses Horde3D but that's a small thing.
Good point - though we want to be careful of the BSD trap.
Instead of forcing an advertising clause, it might be better to just ask for acknowledgment.
For example, if horde came with a sample animated scene which people could use as a "splash screen" in their games, then we could ask that people please display this scene at the start of their game. Such a "splash screen" would also be useful in reinforcing the Horde3D "brand" :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: License
PostPosted: 11.02.2009, 13:49 
Offline

Joined: 11.06.2008, 10:34
Posts: 119
What's wrong with the current LGPL license?

Quote:
For example, if horde came with a sample animated scene which people could use as a "splash screen" in their games, then we could ask that people please display this scene at the start of their game. Such a "splash screen" would also be useful in reinforcing the Horde3D "brand" :wink:

personally I would prefer it left upto to developer in respect to what should, or should not be displayed (and where & when) - In general I don't think the end user is really interested, and anyone who might be, with a quick search would probably find out.

Im sure when left to peoples own discretion you will see Horde3d credited where suitable.

I would becareful, because any restrictive licensing possibly would make the render engine less attractable to developers, thus a smaller community, less interest, and slower development.

_________________

Let's bring 'em out! Any old iron! Any old iron!
A door opens and a homewife brings out a rather sophisticated-looking ground-to-air missile system, and dumps it on the cart.
Thank you.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: License
PostPosted: 11.02.2009, 18:04 
Offline

Joined: 22.11.2007, 17:05
Posts: 707
Location: Boston, MA
PuG wrote:
What's wrong with the current LGPL license?
The primary concern is that one cannot link statically to the engine (which is required by some third party middleware, for example speed tree).

The second issue is that we need to issue a license exception for extension modules anyway, so it is a good time to re-evaluate the current license.

The other issue I see is that the LGPL 2.0 is quite broken as a legal document (version 3.0 fixes most issues however), and commercial studios are often required to avoid version 2.0 entirely.

_________________
Tristam MacDonald - [swiftcoding]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: License
PostPosted: 12.02.2009, 08:20 
Offline

Joined: 11.06.2008, 10:34
Posts: 119
Right I understand :)

Thanks.

_________________

Let's bring 'em out! Any old iron! Any old iron!
A door opens and a homewife brings out a rather sophisticated-looking ground-to-air missile system, and dumps it on the cart.
Thank you.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: License
PostPosted: 12.02.2009, 13:45 
Offline

Joined: 18.02.2008, 16:48
Posts: 19
There are now some new arguments in the discussion. Marciano mentions something like an advertising clause and swiftcoder showed how extensions could be registered to avoid annoyances as shown by Volker.
In my opinion the license text of Marciano is a very good basis. An advertising clause may be added, but it should not be a must to acknowledge Horde I think.
As there was a registration mechanism as explained by swiftcoder, that license would need no further changes because of that. But I would like that say that I never touched extensions so far and have no idea if it could be done like that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: License
PostPosted: 12.02.2009, 13:50 
Offline

Joined: 18.02.2008, 16:48
Posts: 19
DarkAngel wrote:
swiftcoder wrote:
marciano wrote:
I would add to your list that a project needs to clearly state that it uses Horde3D but that's a small thing.
Good point - though we want to be careful of the BSD trap.
Instead of forcing an advertising clause, it might be better to just ask for acknowledgment.
For example, if horde came with a sample animated scene which people could use as a "splash screen" in their games, then we could ask that people please display this scene at the start of their game. Such a "splash screen" would also be useful in reinforcing the Horde3D "brand" :wink:

I agree with you. Asking for acknowledgment is the way to go in my opinion too. And a "splash screen" would be very cool, unfortunately someone had to make one :) .


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: License
PostPosted: 23.02.2009, 02:22 
Offline

Joined: 22.11.2007, 17:05
Posts: 707
Location: Boston, MA
I just noticed the official GNU solution for the plug-in issue: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingOverControlledInterface

_________________
Tristam MacDonald - [swiftcoding]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: License
PostPosted: 23.02.2009, 10:27 
Offline

Joined: 03.06.2008, 18:57
Posts: 19
In my opinion the license text of Marciano is a very good basis. Because it probably solves following model example:

Let say that say that some company will port Horde3D to NDS or Wii. They will need statical linking because dynamic libraries are not supported by consoles (in most cases) . They can release their code modifications to the community, but only those parts which don't use console's SDK or deal with console's HW (because this is forbidden by their console developer licence).

So LGPL makes it difficult for this company. But I think that compromise can be done in case of LGPL. This company can release their code changes (related to console SDK or HW) but only to developers who have console licence. But I am not lawyer.

So any licence which makes it easier is welcome.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: License
PostPosted: 07.04.2010, 11:52 
Offline

Joined: 15.04.2008, 00:33
Posts: 15
If you are to start modifying licenses I think it may be advisable to have some sort of contingency licence using a more well established license. I can't remember the wording but I have seen this before and the jist is "this code is released under license XX or in the event that this license if found to be legally untenable in a given justification it is to be licensed under YYY license in that jurisdiction".

OGRE switched from LGPL to LGPL with static linking exception, then only about 18 months later switched to MIT so it might be worth looking at their discussions.

The following comes is covered by the IANAL clause:

I wonder how the allowing static linking over a "specific interface" works legally with a group of contributors: Either all authors would have to authorise the relicensing whenever that interface was changed or extended or you would be left with a loophole whereby anyone could link to the library however they wanted by abusing the extension of the library. The other option would be for a trusted party (individual or organisation) to be assigned the right to extend the coverage of the clause, which is not the most elegant solution.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: License
PostPosted: 08.04.2010, 20:10 
Offline
Engine Developer

Joined: 10.09.2006, 15:52
Posts: 1217
This thread is more than a year old. We switched to the Eclipse Public License several months ago and don't use (or plan to use) a custom license.

As there is another huge license thread in the General section, I will close this one to avoid further confusion.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC + 1 hour


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group