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

[Steve B. <sjb...@ai...>]

> Dave McClurg wrote:
> 
> i don't like to see sony undermine opensource when
> they use linux and linux tools in their development environment.
> 
> the conditions of the LGPL are important to further opensource.
> perhaps we could keep the license and just not enforce:
> 
> 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    the application against a newer version of the library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.
> 
> the LGPL re-linking requirement is not that important to me.
> doesn't the linux kernel group take a similar stand with
> regards to loadable drivers because it is in their own best
> interests?

Nobody writing a commercial game is going to go with "The
License says this - but they said they won't enforce it".
Games are big business - and it would only be a matter of
time until someone would sue for hundred mil or so.

> as for the other:
> 
> 2) The requirement that all changes and enhancements to the
>    library be offered back into the public domain.
> 
> I think this is just a matter of keeping calls to "secret"
> APIs out of plib and in the client code through callbacks,
> overriding functions, or sub-classing.

...right - but none of the traditional OpenSource licenses
is able to express that.  FWIW, I think that's exactly what's
needed though.
 
> ...eventually sony and the other console makers will change their
> practices but until then there needs to be a little pressure
> put on them.

This is no pressure - a major game can quite easily make as
much as a second rate Hollywood movie.  The man-month of
effort it would take to write something like (say) PUI or
SL is *negligable* compared to that amount of money. (For
the record, PUI took one marathon 18 hour session to write
and debug in its original form - SG took one evening to cut
and paste from a bunch of old sources - SSG was the most complex,
but even that didn't take more than a week to get going).

> we all contribute to opensource with the understanding that
> our pooled efforts can create something better than any
> proprietary solution.  don't give away that freedom.

So I take that as a "No" vote?

>From the marathon debate on the when Mesa changed from (L?)GPL
to Xfree, it only takes one developer to say no to prevent a
license change - unless someone wants to rewrite everything that
person contributed - which wouldn't happen in this case.

-- 
Steve Baker                  http://web2.airmail.net/sjbaker1
sjb...@ai... (home)  http://www.woodsoup.org/~sbaker
sj...@ht...      (work)