RE: [Plib-devel] Licensing for Console Applications.

[Vallevand, M. K <Mar...@UN...>]

I'd have no problem changing the license.  However,
I'd certainly like to see credit in the final product
for the work done by Steve, et al.  Maybe write into
the license a requirement that a credit statement be
included in the released product.  A Plib splash
screen in a PlayStation2 game?  A Plib credit line in
the back of the game manual?

Regards.
Mark K Vallevand   ma...@rs...
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
 Inside of a dog, its too dark to read.  - Groucho


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Baker [mailto:sjb...@ai...]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 12:28 AM
> To: PLIB-devel
> Subject: [Plib-devel] Licensing for Console Applications.
> 
> 
> 
> In recent months, I've had several requests from people who are
> writing applications for Games Consoles to change the PLIB
> license from L-GPL to (say) the Xfree license.
> 
> Normally, I'd just turn license change requests down flat - but
> in the case of a games console, the LGPL license is truly impossible
> for these people to adhere to.
> 
> LGPL requires two things that console software can't meet:
> 
> 1) The requirement that the end-user be able to re-link
>    the application against a newer version of the library
>    at some unspecified time in the future.
> 
> 2) The requirement that all changes and enhancements to the
>    library be offered back into the public domain.
> 
> Clearly (1) is impossible since there are no compilers or
> linkers that the end user can get a hold of - and in any
> case, the media space is limited - and very likely, companies
> like Sony and Nintendo would take a dim view of releasing
> the binaries of their libraries to the big wide world.
> 
> It *might* be possible to meet the letter of the license in
> this case - but the spirit behind LGPL is really meaningless
> in a console situation.
> 
> Requirement (2) is also impossible in many cases because
> the underlying operating system won't be running standard
> graphic library API's (although N64 has a kind of OpenGL
> macro library - and I'm told that there is an OpenGL-like
> API for PS2).
> 
> That means that modifications *MUST* be made to PLIB in
> order for it to work with console systems...but those
> modifications are *useless* for general purpose computers
> and will almost certainly contain calls to API's that
> are only released under NDA.
> 
> So, the question is:
> 
>  * Should we change PLIB's license to help out these people?
> 
> There are some subtle issues here:
> 
> 1) PLIB has had contributions from many people - all of whom
>    have to agree. (Well - at the very least, we have to make
>    an effort to contact those people to get permission).
> 
> 2) Do we want to change the license *only* for console apps
>    or should we simply give up and go to something like Xfree's
>    license for everything?  (I'm not really keen on that idea)
> 
> 3) Is there a better choice than Xfree's license?  I'd quite
>    like to retain some kind of a clause that says that users
>    of PLIB are required to offer enhancements back to the
>    OpenSource community *UNLESS* those changes are solely for
>    the purpose of porting to an inherently closed architecture
>    machine like an embedded processor or a game console.
> 
>    If a console application writer were to make (say) a nicer
>    PUI widget, I'd want that code to return to the public
>    version of PUI - but if he merely changed some OpenGL code
>    to plug into a proprietary rendering API, I could care less
>    about getting that change back...it would be more trouble
>    that it's worth to 99% of PLIB users.
> 
> So - what does everyone think?   I'm open to suggestions -
> especially from people who've actually contributed code.
> 
> BTW: Some people are using the very earliest versions
> of the PLIB component libraries. These were posted to
> my web site without any kind of formal license before
> I grouped them all together to form the PLIB package -
> which was when I placed it all under LGPL.
> 
> There have been at least three requests from various
> console/embedded applications writers - and so far I've
> had to disappoint them.
> 
> -- 
> Steve Baker                  http://web2.airmail.net/sjbaker1
> sjb...@ai... (home)  http://www.woodsoup.org/~sbaker
> sj...@ht...      (work)
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> plib-devel mailing list
> pli...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/plib-devel
>