Licenses | GPLv3 Compatible1 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatIsCompatible),2 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean) | Release changes under a different license8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-licensing) | Link with code under a different license10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_library),11 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_linker) | Link with proprietary code15 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software),16 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CrossOver_(software)) | Compatible with Apple's App Stores17 (http://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/us/terms.html) |
GNU General Public License v3.0 (GPLv3) (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html) | Yes3 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GNUGPL) | Nob | No12 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLStaticVsDynamic) | No12 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLStaticVsDynamic) | No18 (http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement),19 (http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/vlc-enforcement),20 (http://adium.im/pipermail/devel_adium.im/2011-January/007973.html),e |
GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 (LGPLv3) (http://gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html) | Yes4 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#LGPL) | Yes under GPLv39 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#compat-matrix-footnote-8) | Yes with conditions13 (http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic) | Yes with conditions13 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic) | No18 (http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement),19 (http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/vlc-enforcement),20 (http://adium.im/pipermail/devel_adium.im/2011-January/007973.html),e |
GNU General Public License v3.0 (GPLv3) (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html) with Classpath Exception (http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/license.html) | Yesa | Yes under GPLv3a | Yesd | Yesd | No18 (http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement),19 (http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/vlc-enforcement),20 (http://adium.im/pipermail/devel_adium.im/2011-January/007973.html),e |
Mozilla Public License Version 2.0 (MPLv2.0) (http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/) | Yes5 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#MPL-2.0) | Yes under GNU licenses5 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#MPL-2.0) | Yes14 (https://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/FAQ.html#virality) | Yes14 (https://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/FAQ.html#virality) | Yesf |
The MIT License (MIT) (http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT) or The BSD License (BSD) (http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause) | Yes6 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#X11License),7 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ModifiedBSD) | Yesc | Yesc | Yesc | Yesf |
Rezolyze, I really like your topic, it is very informative and this is the best way to approach a license change. I really like this topic, I am thinking about setting it pinned somewhere but I don't know the best place for it. Additionally the information you've provided also helps me because I do not know that much about the various licensing options myself, though I have no problem understanding legal jargon.
I think personally my choice is the BSD license and MPL second. But my primary concern is that I have stated in the past and will reiterate that I do believe users should retain the rights to even sell extensions that would implement things like video functions, other graphics libraries, etc, etc. I just do not want fixes for anything in /SHELL being commercialized, I think this is primarily our biggest concern.
While I welcome a discussion on the topic of licensing, this is not the thread for it. I'd like for all replies in this thread to be about changing or adding something in the top post.
edsquare: All the information in your reply is available in my initial post.
I'm looking for replies like: "I think your answer regarding the LGPLv3 in the "Link with code under a different license" column is incorrect. Here's my reasoning and here are some external sources to back up my point."
I've done a lot of reading and research to create this table and back up my findings with references, but if I made a mistake, I'd like to know about it. If I left out a license you think is a valid choice, I'd like read about why you think it's valid. If you think the wording of something should be changed for some reason, I'd like to know. I'm looking for suggestions and criticisms regarding my initial post. Please, let's not derail this thread any more. Thank you.
I'm looking for replies like: "I think your answer regarding the LGPLv3 in the "Link with code under a different license" column is incorrect. Here's my reasoning and here are some external sources to back up my point."
I appreciate that you are trying to contribute, but please be more specific in the future.I'm looking for replies like: "I think your answer regarding the LGPLv3 in the "Link with code under a different license" column is incorrect. Here's my reasoning and here are some external sources to back up my point."
My example reply tells me exactly where someone has an issue with the table. It tells me which license someone is referring to and which column. Your reply included everything, but the column header. I can only assume that you are taking issue with the MPLv2 answer under the "Prevent proprietary fixes or features" column. That's twice now that someone has questioned the validity of this column, so I'll try rewording the header to be more clear.
Many times throughout the licensing discussion on the forums, someone has suggested a license like the the MPLv2 and been told that such a license would not prevent proprietary fixes or features being implemented through linking. These types of licenses (LGPLv3, MPLv2, etc) are meant to allow linking with code that has a different license. Of course, we want people to be able to legally link their proprietary game code to ENIGMA's engine code.
However, the MPLv2, and other licenses like it, would also allow someone to link proprietary fixes or features to ENIGMA's engine as well. They would probably need to modify some of ENIGMA'S engine code to do it, but the fixes and features would remain proprietary and unshared within their own separate but linked code. To be in compliance with ENIGMA's engine license, they would need to release their changes to the engine code, but their changes would not contain any of their fixes or features. So, in this way, the MPLv2 would not prevent proprietary fixes or features.
Depending on your point of view, this is not necessarily a bad thing. Someone could create an extension that ENIGMA lacked and sell it. It wouldn't directly benefit the ENIGMA project, but it could benefit the game developers that buy the extension and the programmer selling it. Although, I think the major fear is someone creating software like CrossOver (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CrossOver_(software)) which harnesses the power of Wine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_(software)) while adding it's own proprietary features. That's not a fear I share, but some people do.
If you can't follow my example, try this example (http://enigma-dev.org/forums/index.php?topic=1719.msg17326#msg17326) by The 11th plague of Egypt.
The "Prevent proprietary fixes or features" column is meant to illustrate this issue, but I can see why the column header could be misleading. Hopefully the reworded header will clear up the confusion. I misunderstood the replies from both onpon and edsqure. To both of you, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding and thank you for bringing this to my attention.