Dagon Adventure Game Engine Open-Sourced

[Cire]

I would also like to see MPL 2.0.

[admax88]

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.

[jonwil]

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.

[LightBit]

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.

[LightBit]

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?

[oibaf]

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

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

[LightBit]

Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Le...s_from_the_GPL

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.

Read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozill...other_licenses

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

[admax88]

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."

[LightBit]

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.

[Feared]

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.