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

[<Va...@t-...>]

Steve Baker wrote:
> 
> 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    the application against a newer version of the library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.

It's NOT the problem of the comercial game writer that the end user
doesn't have a compiler. When he offers the object files his job is
done. The rest (like that 1000s of $ for the development system) is a
problem of the guy who wants to mess around with the stuff.

But I'm actually not caring about that piece of the licence.

> 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.

I think that they should offer the changes - there might be other
console developers around that would profit from those chages. If we
don't merge those changes as we only see code bloat in it as noone would
really need those it's also ok. The comercial writer did his job.

THe remaining question is the NDA. We might change the licence in a way
that requires that they offer all changes (as it's now) except those
that fall under a NDA. 

NOTE: This might open some holes when the developers say that it was an
internal NDA that they had to stick to...

> So, the question is:
> 
>  * Should we change PLIB's license to help out these people?

I think it would be a good idea. But I don't know the correct answer (we
might try 'Ask Slashdot').

Anyway: I'm sure that you (Steve) will find a good solution and I won't
be against it.

CU,
Christian