Discussion regarding OpenMW's licence – GPL vs MIT, etc

[psi29a]

As for what you said about clean-room implementing, you're basically saying to reverse engineer a reverse engineered engine. Which seems kind of pointless to me. At that point it'd be better for people to make their own engine.

That isn't what happened, Ryan was contracted to port SDL2 to Switch, that isn't reverse engineering. He provides the source for those who request it and it's up to the end user to abide by their NDA. So his work isn't reverse engineering but asking him questions about the implementation then making one that fits the Switch is a possible route to go forward for those interested. This would a cool side-project for someone interested in SDL2 and doesn't have to do with OpenMW at all.

Just look at the dozens of other "FLOSS" engines out there. The only ones that see any real adoption are ones that are either dual licensed with a proprietary license (In which case you have to contact the company that made the engine), or the ones that are released under a truly free license like MIT (Godot).

Ryan even admits that it stinks and he is not a fan. I tend to agree with him. Those systems are not free which goes against the spirit of FLOSS and that is a pity.

Godot is awesome by the way. As said elsewhere, had it been around when OpenMW started then it could have been used. That being said, the project was explicitly started with GPLv3 so even if Godot was used, the resulting project still have been GPLv3. It was a conscious choice.

[monyarm]

That isn't what happened, Ryan was contracted to port SDL2 to Switch, that isn't reverse engineering. He provides the source for those who request it and it's up to the end user to abide by their NDA. So his work isn't reverse engineering but asking him questions about the implementation then making one that fits the Switch is a possible route to go forward for those interested. This would a cool side-project for someone interested in SDL2 and doesn't have to do with OpenMW at all.

I wasn't referring to Ryan's work, I guess I just misunderstood, and though you were referring to reverse-engineering OpenMW.

[monyarm]

Look I get what you're saying. But I guess it's just a difference in opinion. I'm a fan of licenses like MIT, Apache, BSD, cause of the freedom they offer. I consider GPL to not be a truly free license, due to the fact that it puts restrictions on the use of the GPL-licensed content.

There is no "truly free" license. Either you're free to further restrict what users can do (MIT, BSD), or users are just as free as you are (GPL, LGPL). You can prefer whichever license you want, but they're two different and incompatible types of freedom at issue, and different people prioritize different freedoms.

I was referring to permissive licenses, like MIT. Because here's the thing, GPL isn't free, it infects anything it's used in, and has many conditions restricting how it's used. Permissive licenses don't "further restrict" anything, you're free to do pretty much anything with them, so long as you give proper attribution. GPL on the other hand requires you to share any changes you made, which restriicts how you can use anything that's GPL licensed.

When it comes to open source i'm just a fan of permissive licenses and despise copyleft licenses, because they overcomplicate things. I mean just look at steamworks. If you're using a GPL licensed engine, and want to make use of steamworks, you need to use a shim to get it to work with the GPL.

I just prefer complete freedom when it comes to open source, i've made almost every one of my open source projects MIT licensed, and am currently trying to wrap my head around the 3DO port of doom, as it's MIT licensed.

[AnyOldName3]

If we lived in a society where everyone was free to do whatever they wanted, I could exercise my freedom to catch you in a big net and make you my slave forever. You could exercise your freedom to feel like it wasn't a very free society after all. Certain rules, like banning slavery, are freedom-preserving, and necessary to ensure one entity doesn't monopolise all the freedom and keep it just for themselves.

[ezze]

If we lived in a society where everyone was free to do whatever they wanted, I could exercise my freedom to catch you in a big net and make you my slave forever. You could exercise your freedom to feel like it wasn't a very free society after all. Certain rules, like banning slavery, are freedom-preserving, and necessary to ensure one entity doesn't monopolise all the freedom and keep it just for themselves.

Thank you. I seldom think I am only one that find the mainstream idea of freedom a bit weird for it misses this critical point. I always wondered why so many seems so vocal about some freedoms and are so blind to others.

[Chris]

I was referring to permissive licenses, like MIT. Because here's the thing, GPL isn't free, it infects anything it's used in, and has many conditions restricting how it's used.

At the same time, permissive licenses allow closed source binary-only releases, to not publish any changes made (there's only the barest of requirements to note that the code is not the original if it's been changed, without having to say what's been changed or how), and restrict how it's used. GPL guarantees all users have the same access to, and ability to change and replace, the code. The quintessential example being that time Stallman ran into a printer driver bug while doing work for MIT, calling up the manufacturer's support to ask for a fix, being told they don't support that printer anymore, then him asking for the driver source so he could fix it himself (something he hadn't had much trouble asking for previously), and being denied. So he had to rush out to buy a new printer to finish the work, since he was restricted from fixing what he had. It was that experience that helped start the free software movement.

Licenses like MIT (ironically) and BSD allow things like that to happen; there's no requirement to provide source code or allow changed versions of code to run, so users can be stuck with binaries that prevent them from making their own necessary or desired changes. They allow for many restrictions on users.

When it comes to open source i'm just a fan of permissive licenses and despise copyleft licenses, because they overcomplicate things. I mean just look at steamworks. If you're using a GPL licensed engine, and want to make use of steamworks, you need to use a shim to get it to work with the GPL.

Vigilance is needed to protect freedoms, as there are plenty of actors that are keen on taking them away whenever it benefits them. Yes, it gets complicated because these things don't come simple (it doesn't help that copyright is a complicated mess all on its own).

[lysol]

This got heavily off topic but the discussion is interesting. I split the topic up. Please continue discussing here.