[Bf-committers] Can BGE be relicensed?

[Campbell Barton]

Re-licensing the BGE means also relicensing many core components of
Blender - check on all the files you have to make LGPL (notice less
then 1/3 are BGE files in 'gameengine')
see:
www.graphicall.org/ftp/ideasman42/bge_r52684_files.txt

--- txt generated
make --always-make --dry-run VERBOSE=1 > tmp.txt
# python
print("\n".join(sorted({w for w in open("tmp.txt").read().split() if
w.endswith((".c", ".cpp", ".cxx")) if "datafiles" not in w if
w.endswith("_gen.c") is False})))


On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Mitchell Stokes <mogurijin at gmail.com> wrote:
> I honestly think the mailing list is a better place to discuss this than
> the forums. Why talk to users when it's the developers that you need to
> convince? Also, while the license as it is works for the most part, the
> confusion around it drives users away. Not only users, but we've lost BGE
> devs (look at GameKit). I would be fine with a clear exception for just the
> Blenderplayer. As it is right now, the GPL can still mess you up in a
> couple of places:
>
> Blend files: They are currently up to you to license, unless they are
> embedded into the Blenderplayer executable (save as runtime). [0]
>
> Python scripts: You can license them however you want, until you start
> calling into C extension libraries (the second example here[1]). So, you
> have to pretty much stick with pure Python scripts or open source
> libraries, which might not be feasible if you need to access some sort of
> hardware SDK.
>
> So, in other words, you should be fine for the most part, but every once in
> a while you hit a snag, and those snags can lead to confusion, and it's
> that confusion that's hurting the BGE, not so much the license itself.
>
> Furthermore, while we've had re-licensing talks in the past, they've
> usually come down to, "it's unfeasible to get permission from everyone."
> This discussion brings something different since we actually have an
> example of an open source project being re-licensed even though they had to
> get permission.
>
> Cheers,
> Mitchell
>
> [0] http://www.blender.org/education-help/faq/gpl-for-artists/#c2130
> [1] http://www.blender.org/education-help/faq/gpl-for-artists/#c2129
>
> On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Thomas Dinges <blender at dingto.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> A friendly reminder that this mailing list is for active Blender
>> developers to coordinate work, not Licence debates.
>>
>> I don't think there is much interest in a re-licence here, we had such
>> topics in the past. As the BGE is too much integrated, Blender itself
>> would need to be re-licenced too.
>>
>> Personally I am against a switch to LGPL , especially if the only reason
>> for this is this "App Store" debate. So please, continue this topic on
>> the blenderartists forum if you like but stop trying to convince us here
>> that this is the only way and mandatory.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Thomas
>>
>> Am 01.12.2012 19:56, schrieb Sinan Hassani:
>> > You can only link closed source code dynamically with LGPL. Most mobile
>> > app stores require everything to be statically linked anyway, so LGPL is
>> > not going to help. Your code effectively becomes GPL in the technical
>> > sense. We want the LGPL for app stores because it has less restrictions
>> > on distribution, see original post for why it works.
>> >
>> > You can also read the press release from VLC on why they went LGPL:
>> >
>> > Link: http://www.videolan.org/press/lgpl.html
>> >
>> > Part of the reason is for the VLC media player to be more multi-platform.
>> >
>> > PC stores allow for dynamic linking of code, so you can integrate
>> > something like FMOD there using dynamic linking if you want, but you
>> > still need to release source code for all the FMOD code you added to BGE
>> > (i.e. code change and FMOD API calls). This is the case for this FMOD
>> > example if BGE is GPL or LGPL.
>> >
>> > So we're asking for a license change only in certain cases of
>> > distribution. We're asking only for a license change when BGE is given
>> > to a third party repository for redistribution, in which case it would
>> > be available under LGPL.
>> >
>> > I think the LGPL is the best choice here, given that BGE is so
>> > integrated with Blender, going for a more liberal license would not
>> > work. We need a license that is both open source and free software.
>> >
>> > Sinan
>> >
>> > On 12-12-01 10:28 AM, Antony Riakiotakis wrote:
>> >> There's quite some difference between LGPL and GPL. LGPL allows the
>> >> source to be linked to closed code. Some of the developers are
>> >> actually not very friendly with this idea, not to mention being
>> >> friendly with Apple when it comes to 'walled gardens', monopolies,
>> >> patents etc. So combining the two, and proposing a licence change with
>> >> an air of "someone has done it, you HAVE to do it too" and with MAYBE
>> >> the promise of it then being allowed in the Apple store is not the
>> >> best diplomatic move you could do.
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Bf-committers mailing list
>> > Bf-committers at blender.org
>> > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thomas Dinges
>> Blender Developer, Artist and Musician
>>
>> www.dingto.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bf-committers mailing list
>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers



-- 
- Campbell