plib-devel

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.  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.

BTW: someone on opengl-gamedev posted this link for opengl on the PS2
console:
http://www.dataplus.co.jp/OpenGL4ps2.html

--Dave McClurg

> I think I read all of the messages about changing the
> license for use in embedded things (consoles, etc...),
> but I don't recall what the final outcome of that 
> discussion was.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Paul

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

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

I'll quit being a roadblock
I agree to whatever license change Steve wants to make.
It will only make my life easier convincing management to let me use plib.

thanks and sorry for the hassle,
-- Dave McClurg

> Paul Bleisch writes:
> >
> >I think I read all of the messages about changing the
> >license for use in embedded things (consoles, etc...),
> >but I don't recall what the final outcome of that 
> >discussion was.
> >
> >
> 
> Not sure I ever really weighed in so
> 
> FWIW
> I believe that if we ever want PLib to become a standard
> we need a license that will allow 'commercial' interests to 
> feel comfortable.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Norman

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

[Norman V. <nh...@ca...>]

RE: [Plib-devel] Any resolution on the license?Dave McClurg  writes:
  I'll quit being a roadblock
  I agree to whatever license change Steve wants to make.
  It will only make my life easier convincing management to let me use plib.

  thanks and sorry for the hassle,

  Hi Dave

  You weren't a hassle to me at least.

  I think that you made some very valid points

  That a part of me identifies very closely with.

  Cheers

  Norman

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

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

> Norman Vine wrote:
> 
> Dave McClurg  writes:
> 
>>      I'll quit being a roadblock
>>      I agree to whatever license change Steve wants to make.
>>      It will only make my life easier convincing management to let me use plib.
>> 
>>      thanks and sorry for the hassle,
> 
>      Hi Dave
> 
>      You weren't a hassle to me at least.
> 
>      I think that you made some very valid points
> 
>      That a part of me identifies very closely with.

I agree - you've contributed a lot - you have a 'big vote' and if
you want LGPL to stay then I fully support that view.

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.

If it's *utterly* impossible for PLIB to be used on consoles - then
bearing in mind that LGPL doesn't make a whole lot of sense to the
end user of the application - *THEN* I might be prepared to yield
and go with Xfree licensing.

If I'm to believe Dave then it's not impossible to live with LGPL
in that setting - so as far as I'm concerned, it's LGPL unless
proven otherwise.

-- 
Steve Baker   HomeEmail: <sjb...@ai...>
              WorkEmail: <sj...@li...>
              HomePage : http://web2.airmail.net/sjbaker1
              Projects : http://plib.sourceforge.net
                         http://tuxaqfh.sourceforge.net
                         http://tuxkart.sourceforge.net
                         http://prettypoly.sourceforge.net

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

[Paul B. <pbl...@di...>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Baker [mailto:sjb...@ai...]
> Subject: Re: [Plib-devel] Any resolution on the license?
> 
> * Since Dave is actually using PLIB on a console himself
>   and is a contributor who DOESN'T want to change the
>   license - I really have to believe that there is a way
>   to stick to the spirit and law of LGPL and still work
>   on PS-2.

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but two quick points
about this (as far as my scenario):

a) We are not developing for the PS-2.  In fact our
APIs will be available on other platforms as it is,
so (I think) all of our source changes would/could
be rolled back into the project.

b) The larger problem is that we cannot provide .o's 
or anything such that those who may want to re-link
with a different version of sg or ssg.  This is the
major sticking point.  As your other post mentions,
companies make decisions.  But that decision means
we cannot follow LGPL -- regardless of ideological
or philosophical arguments.  However, there are other
licenses that would allow us to use ssg/sg and 
contribute back to it.


> I don't really relish the idea of buggy old versions of
> PUI (especially) from that era floating around on the web,
> but so long as people know what they are doing and don't
> do anything stoopid like setting up a non-licensed PLIB
> in competition with the modern LGPL'ed version, I can live
> with that.

The larger problem (that I am trying to avoid) is starting
yet another opensource package just to fix license issues.

As it stands that seems like the only alternative.  I just
wanted to check before I move forward.

Paul

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

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

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

> Dave McClurg wrote:
> 
> 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.

Since I havn't signed the Sony NDA, I obviously don't know anything about the
specific nature of the secret API's.  That is the crux of this issue:

  * If the Sony API's can be made to look enough like OpenGL or other base
    libraries that PLIB uses such that PLIB does not have to be modified
    in order to make it work with those API's - then we don't have a problem.

  * If those API's cannot be made to look enough like OpenGL (or whatever) and
    you have to hack PLIB - then you'd have to find a way to make the changes
    to PLIB without including anything that SONY would find objectionable. Then
    you could publish these cryptic changes that none of the rest of us would
    understand - but which would be conditionally compiled out for everyone
    not developing for PS-2.

The only other thing you'd have to do to obey the LGPL is to tell your customers
where to get PLIB in the unlikely event they should ever wish to rebuild
their console game using a new version.  That's silly, I know - but it's
the rule.  You could put that in teeny-tiny letters in the manual or probably
even on your official web site.

  * If you feel you cannot even do *that* and you need to show revealing things
    about Sony's oh-so-secret stuff in order to get PLIB to work - then you
    are truly screwed.  Throw $10,000 in my direction and I'll write you a new
    private version that's utterly free of restrictions...that's negotiable!  :-)

> BTW: someone on opengl-gamedev posted this link for opengl on the PS2 console:
> http://www.dataplus.co.jp/OpenGL4ps2.html

Yep - interesting.  I'm guessing that some people want to use a *different* API
(maybe a lower level one) - and that's the problem for them.


Dave:

  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.

-- 
Steve Baker   HomeEmail: <sjb...@ai...>
              WorkEmail: <sj...@li...>
              HomePage : http://web2.airmail.net/sjbaker1
              Projects : http://plib.sourceforge.net
                         http://tuxaqfh.sourceforge.net
                         http://tuxkart.sourceforge.net
                         http://prettypoly.sourceforge.net