Since there is really nothing to 'agree' to, can we just use the 'Next' button instead?
If necessary, make radio buttons for accept/decline and a next button.
This brings up an interesting topic that we discussed on IRC, is the GPL a good fit for OpenMW. I would rather see OpenMW go under the LGPL, that way if someone wanted to, they could fork it and make their own product based on OpenMW without having it also be GPL in the process. (I like giving people a choice instead of locking them into a license.)
Is GPL the right license for OpenMW?
- psi29a
- Posts: 5362
- Joined: 29 Sep 2011, 10:13
- Location: Belgium
- Gitlab profile: https://gitlab.com/psi29a/
- Contact:
Is GPL the right license for OpenMW?
Last edited by psi29a on 13 Jun 2012, 12:32, edited 1 time in total.
Re: License dialog in the windows installer
In a decent world giving choice is the best, so the 2 clause BSD or even sqlite license work fine; in this world no. GPL.
Re: License dialog in the windows installer
To change to LGPL (not that I am in favour of it), we would first need to acquire the permissions of all code contributors. Many of them are not with us anymore. Contacting them all sounds like a lot of work and if only one of them declines we would have to either cancel the license change or swap out parts of the code. Sounds like a huge waste of time to me and GPL is fine anyway.
Re: License dialog in the windows installer
I'm not sure what's exactly the problem with GPL for OpenMW. I'm not a copyright holder and I'm not a lawyer (so probably I shouldn't speak at all ).BrotherBrick wrote: This brings up an interesting topic that we discussed on IRC, is the GPL a good fit for OpenMW. I would rather see OpenMW go under the LGPL, that way if someone wanted to, they could fork it and make their own product based on OpenMW without having it also be GPL in the process. (I like giving people a choice instead of locking them into a license.)
Forking and building for you own product is also possible with GPL and since openmw not used as an (engine) library (not that I know), I'm also thinking that it's quite fine.
- psi29a
- Posts: 5362
- Joined: 29 Sep 2011, 10:13
- Location: Belgium
- Gitlab profile: https://gitlab.com/psi29a/
- Contact:
Re: License dialog in the windows installer
But any additional code I write during the fork must also be GPL.
For example, in OpenMW is OpenEngine (middleware) which is also GPL. If I want hack around a bit and make something based on OpenEngine (library), then it too must be GPL.
Not that GPL is bad, just that I no longer have a choice in the matter. If it was LGPL, then I could keep my property closed sourced (evil) or under MIT/BSD license (good), but I can always provide OpenEngine libraries that I used as they are LGPL.
Another example would be DungeonHack that would use OpenMW. Per GPL, DungeonHack must also be GPL.
For example, in OpenMW is OpenEngine (middleware) which is also GPL. If I want hack around a bit and make something based on OpenEngine (library), then it too must be GPL.
Not that GPL is bad, just that I no longer have a choice in the matter. If it was LGPL, then I could keep my property closed sourced (evil) or under MIT/BSD license (good), but I can always provide OpenEngine libraries that I used as they are LGPL.
Another example would be DungeonHack that would use OpenMW. Per GPL, DungeonHack must also be GPL.
Re: License dialog in the windows installer
Yon can fork, but the new product must use GPL too. This is the point, GPL protects freedom in the derivative products.
- psi29a
- Posts: 5362
- Joined: 29 Sep 2011, 10:13
- Location: Belgium
- Gitlab profile: https://gitlab.com/psi29a/
- Contact:
Re: License dialog in the windows installer
It is the point of the GPL, but some people do not want that. I (for example) do not want to force users of my code to be GPL. I use LGPL for that reason.ezzetabi wrote:Yon can fork, but the new product must use GPL too. This is the point, GPL protects freedom in the derivative products.
Re: License dialog in the windows installer
I'm not sure you are right here. If I change LGPL code and I publish a product using this LGPL code, I have to provide the sources with my changes and my changes also have to be LGPL. You really cannot change the license if you are not holding the copyright on it.BrotherBrick wrote: It is the point of the GPL, but some people do not want that. I (for example) do not want to force users of my code to be GPL. I use LGPL for that reason.
The big difference between GPL und LGPL (from wikipedia):
Code: Select all
The main difference between the GPL and the LGPL is that the latter allows the work to be linked with (in the case of a library, 'used by') a non-(L)GPLed program, regardless of whether it is free software or proprietary software.
Re: Is GPL the right license for OpenMW?
You can use the product on non-free material, but original work stays in the LGPL. LGPL does not force who use it to use the LGPL for the new parts.
Re: Is GPL the right license for OpenMW?
The part where GPL is evil is that works licensed under GPL cannot be used together with works that are not under GPL-compatible license to make a derived work.