RE: [Plib-devel] Any resolution on the license?

[Dave M. <Dav...@dy...>]

> > i was in favor of leaving the license as LGPL and placing NDA calls
outside plib
> > using function overrides or hooks.  this keeps the plib project flexible
and
> > improving.  i also don't think the developer is responsible for
supplying the
> > end-user with the compilation tools and SDKs.
> 
> That's certainly true.
> 
> >  it that was true, much opensource would be in trouble.  if someone can
explain
> > why this approach does not comply with the terms of the LGPL in spirit
and law,
> > i would appreciate it.  i'm doing console development using plib.
> 
> I think that this is perfectly acceptable - and the very fact that you
have
> contributed so much to PLIB that you might not have done if it wasn't
under
> LGPL shows the value of the license.

Thanks for the thoughtful replies Steve.

I'm glad you want to stick with the LGPL.  I really support opensource
development as a better *process* and I think the LGPL is the best license
to encourage use and development of opensource libraries.

Because of PLIB's design, it has few dependencies and only requires an
OpenGL api to run.  For the PS2 you can start using the alpha-ware OpenGL
from DataPlus (http://www.dataplus.co.jp/OpenGL4ps2.html) or write your own
subset OpenGL (quake basically took this approach with MiniGL).

To write your own PS2 OpenGL subset look at TinyGL
(http://www-stud.enst.fr/~bellard/TinyGL.html).  It is a great starting
point.  It has a zlib-like license which permits you to incorporate it into
commericial proprietary code.

>   Is there a way for you to share your NDA-limited "function overrides or
hooks" with other
> PS-2 console users?   I know you couldn't reveal them to (for example) me
- because I
> have not signed the PS-2 NDA - but to other developers perhaps?   It would
be nice for
> there to be a standard version of those things so that:
> 
> a) They didn't have to be re-invented.
> 
> b) PS-2 developers wouldn't have to worry that they were
>    doing something unacceptable either to the PLIB community
>    or to SONY.
> 
> c) I could even write a note to go into the PLIB README
>    saying that I felt this was appropriate usage and
>    not contrary to the spirit of the LGPL or my intended
>    interpretation of it in the context of PLIB.

sure.  i would love to.

For my own project, I have a LGPL library that hides platform dependencies
and presents PLIB with a subset of GLUT/OpenGL.
http://www.pond.net/~davem/tinylib/.  What I'm doing for console is creating
a closed-source implementation of TinyLIB interfaces (allowed and encouraged
for others too).

Win32 TinyLIB is feature complete.  On PS2, we have most of GLUT and about
30% of OpenGL finished (we can run the classic GEARS opengl example on the
PS2).  If you're interested in following this approach and have a signed PS2
NDA, perhaps we can join forces.

> If it is truly possible (albeit at some low level of difficulty) for
> console programmers to adhere to LGPL and use PLIB then I'm personally
> against changing the license.

Both technically and legally, I don't see how developing for Sony PS2 using
an LGPLed PLIB presents a problem.

-- Dave McClurg