alexander {l Wrote}:unfortunately SDL2 has changed from GPL to zlib, meaning that it is likely to aid the development of nonfree games -- that'll probably be distributed via a DRM-infested platform serviced through a proprietary program (i.e. Steam). this is a *big* mistake.
alexander {l Wrote}:@amuzen Sorry, I meant LGPL. That licence choice was a smaller mistake. Changing to zlib is on the other hand a *big* mistake, and completely the wrong direction where user freedom is concerned.
charlie {l Wrote}:Your worldview is impractical. The vast majority of games made for money (as in, games that pay bills) are not open source. By using a viral license, SDL would marginalize itself massively.
The zlib License has been approved by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) as a free software licence,[1] and by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) as an open source license.[2] It is compatible with the GNU General Public License.[1]
jcantero {l Wrote}:I'd like to note that zlib license is a free software license by all means, including FSF's point of view:The zlib License has been approved by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) as a free software licence,[1] and by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) as an open source license.[2] It is compatible with the GNU General Public License.[1]
Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zlib_License, https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ZLib
The GPL/LGPL licenses are not the only free software licenses for the FSF itself, but the prefered ones. A software can be free software to the FSF and not use a (L)GPL license. Indeed, the linux graphics stack has been tradicionally licensed under MIT license, and nobody complains about it, or denies to call it free software, even the FSF.
Seriously, guys, this is a non-sense discussion.
alexander {l Wrote}:You are missing the point. Yes, SDL will continue to be free software. However, it will aid the development of nonfree software with its new, lax licence.
Julius {l Wrote}:Na, I was rather making fun of these arguments (I could have closed the thread easily for real ).
FaTony {l Wrote}:I'm sorry but GPL is practical. The perfect world solution would be complete removal of copyright and patents and reform of trademark law.
Julius {l Wrote}:Basically it boils down to preference, with experience shown that copy-left projects (if taken up and accepted) do show longterm overall benefits (see Linux kernel, vs FreeBSD), while "open-source" projects are quicker and easier taken up by commercial "players" (which is a good thing, but whom are sadly still scared away a bit from copy-left even though it would be basically in their interest too as it prevents competitors to take the advancements and spin-off their own even better closed source alternative).
....
There you have it, argument closed!
Julius {l Wrote}:But I stand by my point that copyleft has long term benefits and open-source/MIT like has short term benefits (and maybe long-term disadvantages).
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest