Re: [GD-General] Games using off-the-shelf scripting languages other than Python or Lua?
Brought to you by:
vexxed72
From: Patrick D. <pa...@wa...> - 2004-08-21 16:29:16
|
I think it is well understood that any modifications made to the library must be distributed under LGPL. However, one of the primary goals of the LGPL is to ensure that a user can modify the library covered by the LPGL and use those modifications with the application. The requirements of the LGPL make it the developer's responsibility to ensure the user has access to the necessary materials to make those modifications and relink them with the application. Section 6 of the license covers the distribution requirements of a "work that uses the library" that has been linked with the library. In particular, the distribution must: - permit the user to modify and reverse engineer the game - give prominent notice that the library is used and covered by LGPL - include a copy of the LGPL license - for every copyright notice displayed by the game, also include the copyright notice for the library and information about how to obtain the LGPL license - do one of the following: 1. include complete source code for the library, source code and/or object code for the game, source code and/or object code for all other libraries used 2. use dynamic linking for access the library 3. include a written offer to give a user the material in choice #1 - and if the distribution is an executable: - include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the executable from it (exception: materials normally included with the OS do not need to be included) I expect most of us deliver games as an executable, so to comply with that last requirement, I think you will need to include .obj files and any other .lib files that you statically link against. Your game may use a middleware library with a license that does not permit redistribution or reverse engineering. If this is the case, then the LGPL is explicit: you cannot use the the two libraries in the same executable. The problem may get worse for console developers. Since development kits are not normally distributed or obtainable by end users, I think you would need to provide one to be compliant. I'm not a lawyer, so my interpretations may be incorrect. However, there are enough issues here to make LGPL an unattractive license for commerical developers. mike wuetherick wrote: > Zach Baker wrote: > >> Are you actually using it under the terms of the LGPL? The LGPL is a >> pretty demanding license to attach to a scripting language and in >> particular to a language that might otherwise be suitable for being >> embedded in a commercial game. > > > what about the lgpl do you think would cause problems for a commercial > game? you don't have to provide your scripts, you don't have to provide > the code for the application you created with simkin, you just have to > provide any changes you make to simkin itself - which in our case has > been almost zero. > > in any case, the game engine itself is open-source under an mit license > so it the source is always available online anyways. > > not sure what the problem here would be, the source has been released > properly, we have commercial teams using the engine and for most > requirements, you wouldn't need to modify the simkin portions of the > code even if you wanted to add new scripting commands or modify the > gameshell itself... > > mike w > www.realityfactory.ca > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is sponsored by Shop4tech.com-Lowest price on Blank Media > 100pk Sonic DVD-R 4x for only $29 -100pk Sonic DVD+R for only $33 > Save 50% off Retail on Ink & Toner - Free Shipping and Free Gift. > http://www.shop4tech.com/z/Inkjet_Cartridges/9_108_r285 > _______________________________________________ > Gamedevlists-general mailing list > Gam...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-general > Archives: > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=557 |