[Lodestone-users] License Issues (From: [Plib-devel] Lodestone.)

[<ha...@sl...>]

[Moved the license issue to the lodestone lists - per Steve's request]

>No - but it's a very small step from there to "I write a closed-source
>program which loads models via LodeStone - which is OK because I'm
>really using it to load 3DS models using the LGPL'ed LodeStone loader.
>Then sometime later someone writes a GPL'ed loader to load (say) Maya
>models - and now someone is suing me because my program links to the GPL'ed
>loader."

Yes, I see what you mean in this case.  Someone could, for example, create
a proprietary pretty-poly editor that opened generic models, modified them
- and then saved them.  Sine it uses the generic "loadStone" loader, it
would inherit any loaders the end user stuck on the system.

If you as an author distributed LoadStone that was linked with only LGPL'd
loaders with your proprietary "pretty-poly-like loader", I think you are
doing the right thing and will have no problems.

This isn't so much a problem with games, since you usually distribute the
artwork with the game, and you'd use artwork that works with a LGPL'd
loader.

I'll clarify this with the RMS, if he has the time to reply.

>That's something we must avoid - or else GPL *everything* from the start -
>which is something I'm strongly against.  So the deep question (and where
>I think this thread started) is:  Should the LodeStone project refuse
>to accept GPL'ed libraries on the grounds that they could deter closed
>source authors from using the LGPL'ed loaders?   OR should we encourage
>GPL'ed loaders despite this potential problem because we want more loaders
>for our OpenSourced programs?

I think it just comes down to educating the developers and users of plib
by explaining the details in a "License FAQ" of sorts.  I'd be willing to
help with this if you'd like (being that I already have a big mouth about
this issue) :-)

Originally I was thinking you could set the direction by licensing it
under the LGPL and asking for submissions to be done under the LGPL.  This
follows with the same ideas you used when licensing plib.  But
I think I've since determined that is a bit shortsighted.
The community is really built around standards and the ability for anyone
to branch off and do what they want if the project isn't headed in the
direction they think it should go.  Just as you said before, if someone
wants to donate a GPL'd loader - whether you post it on sourceforge or
not, they can do so.  If they are going to make a loader, it should still
be accepted if they insist on it being GPL'd.

I do think starting the project as an LGPL'd project will naturally
lead most contributors to donate in the same fashion.

--
Brian