Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dagon Adventure Game Engine Open-Sourced

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    CDDL is a license written by Sun for their own purposes. According to someone (see more info on wikipedia) CDDL was written with the specific goal of GPL-incompatibility.

    On the other hand MPL 2.0 was written over a period of 21 months in a public process that included extensive feedback from a variety of people (see their FAQ and also wikipedia) and has a goal of compatibility with both the Apache License and (L)GPL.

    CDDL incompatibility leads to some problems in the past, I just remember what happened to cdrtools. See also this for a recent license incompatibility problem (this was with GPL licenses but the point is that license incompatibility eventually leads to these sort of problems). For practical purposes I think it's better to use a wider compatible license so MPL 2.0 is preferable IMO. LGPL is also a good choice.

    Other than that, having the engine open source, whatever the license, is anyway a great news .
    Last edited by oibaf; 02-17-2013, 01:50 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      So, the consensus here is that everyone agrees that MPL 2.0 is either completely equivalent or better than CDDL. Feared thinks it's not worth the trouble (but is not in any way opposed), and everyone else would like to see MPL 2.0?

      I'm also in the MPL 2.0 camp. I would like to have the choice to produce a fully-GPL work based on Dagon, if I choose (in particular, there is a lot of room for high-quality educational tools for children in an immersive environment).

      I also want first-person adventure gaming to flourish on Linux through strong commercial investment... and a healthy community composed of both will help ensure it's longevity.

      They are in the middle of a Kickstarter campaign, however. I feel that Agustín ought not mess with the licensing until the project closes. If he can relicense Dagon under MPL 2.0 in a couple of weeks, I'd be pretty happy. That doesn't even preclude looking into it now, since a license-only change is nothing to do with the code itself.

      Comment


      • #18
        I'm with Rahul. LGPL sounds just what is needed here. It is not as restrictive towards developers as GPLs are. But yes, MPL 2.0 (but not earlier) is a decent choice as well

        Originally posted by jaggers View Post
        They are in the middle of a Kickstarter campaign, however. I feel that Agustín ought not mess with the licensing until the project closes. If he can relicense Dagon under MPL 2.0 in a couple of weeks, I'd be pretty happy. That doesn't even preclude looking into it now, since a license-only change is nothing to do with the code itself.
        I do believe that it's a fairly major concern. Relicensing while the campaign is ongoing may very well increase the number of people interested. As it is, CDDL is known for being a way to diplomatically say "screw you, free software", and that definitely does not sit well with some people.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
          IMO, LGPL fits your purpose just fine. Picking that license doesn't involve supporting GNU in any real sense. Plently of people including Linus picked GNU licenses because the license was a good fit regardless of the politics.
          LGPL is different than CDDL and MPL 2, because it doesn't allow static linking with incompatible license.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by LightBit View Post
            LGPL is different than CDDL and MPL 2, because it doesn't allow static linking with incompatible license.
            This is not correct. It is allowed if you provide linkable object files.

            Comment


            • #21
              I would also like to see MPL 2.0.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by AgustinCordes View Post
                Would you folks feel more comfortable if we used MPL 2.0? I don't want a strong copyleft license like GPL but at the same time nothing as permissive as BSD. I want to encourage open contributions but give permission to devs to link against closed source libraries, or even their own code.

                CDDL seemed like a sweet spot in between the GPL and BSD extremes. MPL 2.0 seems to share the same spirit, but looks simpler.
                MPL or Apache please. CDDL is a bad license. Although I personally see no reason not to go full GPL.

                Comment


                • #23
                  The only reason the CDDL exists is because Sun wanted a license that would prevent Solaris kernel code (ZFS etc) being used in the Linux kernel.
                  I also think the MPL or Apache license seem to be better choices if you don't want to go LGPL/GPL.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by oibaf View Post
                    This is not correct. It is allowed if you provide linkable object files.
                    Well of course you can link it is allowed to link it, but you are not allowed to redistribute it.
                    Most people don't know how to link object files and it is very impractical.

                    It is not allowed to redistribute incompatible licensed binary statically linked to LGPL binary.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by jonwil View Post
                      The only reason the CDDL exists is because Sun wanted a license that would prevent Solaris kernel code (ZFS etc) being used in the Linux kernel.
                      I also think the MPL or Apache license seem to be better choices if you don't want to go LGPL/GPL.
                      But you know that MPL isn't compatible with LGPL/GPL and Apache license isn't copyleft at all?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                        Well of course you can link it is allowed to link it, but you are not allowed to redistribute it.
                        Most people don't know how to link object files and it is very impractical.

                        It is not allowed to redistribute incompatible licensed binary statically linked to LGPL binary.
                        Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Le...s_from_the_GPL

                        Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                        But you know that MPL isn't compatible with LGPL/GPL and Apache license isn't copyleft at all?
                        Read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozill...other_licenses

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by oibaf View Post
                          Hm. Not sure why FLTK uses LGPLv2 with static linking exception.
                          Of course, it is allowed to redistribute source code and object files, because they are not linked at all.


                          Correction: MPL 2.0 is compatible, but older aren't.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                            But you know that MPL isn't compatible with LGPL/GPL and Apache license isn't copyleft at all?
                            If you want to go copyleft, go full copyleft and use the GPL. Using half-way between licenses is like saying "I want copyleft, but if you REALLY want to ignore I guess you can in some cases."

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by admax88 View Post
                              If you want to go copyleft, go full copyleft and use the GPL. Using half-way between licenses is like saying "I want copyleft, but if you REALLY want to ignore I guess you can in some cases."
                              I agree. You have to decide.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by jaggers View Post
                                So, the consensus here is that everyone agrees that MPL 2.0 is either completely equivalent or better than CDDL. Feared thinks it's not worth the trouble (but is not in any way opposed), and everyone else would like to see MPL 2.0?
                                You're right I don't think it's worth the trouble. I wouldn't mind the code being licensed under MPL 2.0 but If we're talking about licenses worth switching to then I would prefer the FreeBSD or Apache license. Switching from CDDL to MPL to me seems like a good waste of time and effort for little real gain imo.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X