Re: [Opentnl-general] Greetings!
Brought to you by:
mark_frohnmayer,
s_alanet
From: Ben G. <be...@ga...> - 2004-04-21 18:12:16
|
Jarrod Roberson wrote: > > Ok what I get from this is - confusion still . . . :-) > > ignoring the console code issue for right now . . . > > This is what I get from the above and Ben's response also . . . > > non-OpenTNL code contributions will require the contributor to assign > dual license rights to GG, thats fine. > Are you going to require the same dual license for contributions to > the official OpenTNL code base? Yes. That's the whole point of the joint copy right stuff - is to keep the source code legally "ours", so that people can use it for things. Open source projects all have similar issues, which is why things like the Apache Software Foundation exist - as an entity to which to assign copyright for Apache source, as much as anything else. > > So the assumptions are these > > that the OpenTNL code base and the "commercial/indie" licensed code > base will always be the same ( not counting the console code ) Yes. Console code will probably live in its own space (assuming that the licenses are such we can't put the console-specific parts up for public download) but all will be kept in synch. > that the commercial and indie license fees will just allow you to NOT > have to ship your own personal code with your product, since the GPL > includes > any code that is statically or dynamically linked in, anything that > uses OpenTNL has to be GPL also. Yes. > > Just to clarify, I fully intend on buying the indie license ( this is > really what I wanted when I bought Torque :-) ) . . . but I want to > work with the OpenTNL stuff until I get a full understanding of how it > all works. So this is more for clarification than anything, since it > is kind of a moot point once I buy the license correct? Yes. Ben |