Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 39

Thread: Dagon Adventure Game Engine Open-Sourced

  1. #21

    Default

    I would also like to see MPL 2.0.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    28

    Default

    Quote 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.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    104

    Default

    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.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Quote 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.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Quote 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?

  6. #26

    Default

    Quote 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

    Quote 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

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Quote 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.


    Quote Originally Posted by oibaf View Post
    Correction: MPL 2.0 is compatible, but older aren't.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    28

    Default

    Quote 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."

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Quote 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.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Quote 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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •