Horde3D

Gah - my bad. Reading the wrong license

_________________
Tristam MacDonald - [swiftcoding]

Unfortunately, that's right. But you can put your game under the LGPL to be able to link against modules with another license. We will do the same for the editor.

I still do not see in which sense there is an incompatibility between GPL and EPL...
Anyway, I do not want to put my game under GPL, I was just bringing out the problem.

Wouldn't be dual-licensing Horde under LGPL and EPL be a solution ? Or would you miss some feature you got thanks to the EPL in this case ?

From what I have read, one of the main reasons are different patent clauses (which are not really relevant for horde).

Dual-licensing could be a solution but I would really prefer to stick to a single license (the EPL) to not complicate the whole topic even more.

I am not sure it is such a big problem - the GPL is not a particularly popular license outside of GNU itself. Partly this is because patent restrictions prevent major companies from using it, partly because it is incompatible with many popular licenses, partly because it is very unclear (at least in the LGPL v2) about how linking causes it to become viral, and lastly because it has issues with regard to code ownership and freedom.

_________________
Tristam MacDonald - [swiftcoding]

I had a look at the community branch, and if I am correct, the Horde3D Scene Editor is licensed under the GPL..incompatible with the EPL...

Well, I don't know what the general take on necromancy around here; this one might smell a bit funny, but at least you can still recognize the basic shape. Sorry to bring this topic up again; I know you only recently changed your license to EPL, but I honestly think using a GPL-incompatible license exclusively is ... short-sighted, to put it friendly.



I'm not sure if you are aware that the GPL is, in fact, the single most widely used free software license of the bunch (and there are lots):

* Top 20 Most Commonly Used Licenses in Open Source Projects
* As a very simple statistic, now (17 March 2010, quite early, at least around here ) Freshmeat.net returns 41596 results when searching for nothing in particular and 20995 results when that is narrowed down to GPL stuff.

Also I'm quite sure the virality (with regard to linking and in general) of the GPL is pretty well-accepted; I haven't heard of anyone doubting that and being taken seriously. And finally regarding that CNet article, that problem isn't specific to the GPL, it's specific to copyleft licenses (the EPL also is one of those).

Note that I do not intend to use the GPL with Horde (or anything, really); I don't like how it tends to spread. But I don't think that you can just ignore the GPL like you do now. It is, in fact, widely used; not for "gamey" libraries I'd assume, but in a lot of other domains.

With that out of the way, let me list some options that, in my opinion, you (i.e. the copyright holders; I haven't looked up who that is) should consider instead:

* A simple all-permissive license, like the MIT or Modified BSD licenses. I understand that you feel you need to protect your code from, excuse my polemics, evil exploitation; I just don't agree, I included this for completeness.
* GNU GPL + some linking exception to allow dynamic and static linking. Such an exception is usually known as a/the Classpath Exception because it is used by the GNU Classpath project. When Sun released Java as free software, they also chose the GPL with Classpath Exception, at least for the class libraries (not sure about the rest). For Horde, the distinction between programmes using the library and modifications/extensions to the library - which would be the line that is relevant for this license - is, at least informally, easy to draw: Code using the external interface as defined by those header files may use any license, code that directly interacts with the guts of the engine, meaning extensions, have to be licensed under the GPL. (Disclaimer: Don't take my word on that, I'm no lawyer.)
* Dual-licensing under the GPL and some other license, e.g. the EPL. That would make it actually legal to combine Horde3D and any other GPL code into a programme by (implicitly) choosing to license Horde under the GPL option.

Yeah, licensing can become really complicated if you do want copyleft, but do not want the GPL. Apart from the first one, all these options are more complicated than a single license without project-local additions. However, I'd say that the advantages totally outweigh anything else in the long run. So ... please?

What are the implications for porting changes back from a GPL fork? Wouldn't these changes only be covered by the GPL so that the integration into the dual licensed version is forbidden?

yeah - but if that's supposed to be an argument against dual-licensing, then I'd say that sth like this is unlikely to happen.

If this was such a problem, all other large rendering engines wouldn't all have permissive license.

My apologies for resurecting this thread once again
Regardless, the GPL and its derivatives (apart from classpath) are viewed with extreme suspicion by the game industry, and many publishers won't touch your project with a barge pole if it is 'infected' by the GPL. I also tend to think that Ogre's similar change of license validates our moving away from the GPL.
Does the GPL become viral if I wrap a GPL library with an IPC layer, and communicate with a closed-source application using pipes? What about the same with sockets? How about if I link to an LGPL library using a commercial compiler, thus requiring users to purchase an expensive compiler license if they wish to re-link with a different version of the library? While not all of those appear on the surface to violate the letter of the GPL/LGPL, all three violate the spirit, and these situations are not as uncommon as you might expect (especially the third, in embedded development).
It is a good option, and would have been my preferred option, but we bow to the founder's wishes in remaining copy-left.
You will note that we discussed this at some length while selecting a license.
This is the sticking point - the whole reason to move away from the LGPL was to allow closed-source extensions. Classpath would disallow that, while not allowing any additional freedoms (apart from static linking, and some clarification of rights) over the LGPL.
As I see it the primary issue here, especially with extensions, is that it splits the community. Developers who desire the EPL can't build upon work done under the GPL, and vice-versa. Horde's active community is small enough as is, without splitting it down the middle.

_________________
Tristam MacDonald - [swiftcoding]

Hello.
I have exactly that problem.
I want to publish my software under the GPL (not LGPL). Is there a solution to workaround this problem? Maybe a special modified GPL-version

Greetings from Germany.

i think i gonna use the Beta3, which is licensed under the LGPL for my software. Are there much differences between Beta3 and Beta4?

By the way: great engine! (i'm new to Horde3D)

yes: there were several API and file format changes

I can't make my decision which engine to use, just jumping between others. Could You help me?

I just loved Horde3d, but I'd like to release my game under GPLv3 license. And that's my problem, as you already know it seems to be uncompatible with EPL. I'm not surprised that many companies would see Horde3D most likely under BSD or similar. You get all and give nothing - good deal (for close-minded).

I can't understand though why You've listened to them and made a license migration. Static linking vs. dynamic linking is much smaller problem than releasing a source code (because they have to) and patent it (because in ELP you can do that). Why you've chosen path which leads to the second problem then?

I would happily use and aid project which let people take all and give some. Unfortunately, by choosing EPL You don't want help from people who get AND give. I can understand big companies, which can add some proprietary plugins and gain profit, laughing in the meantine from freaks that've made their lucre.

Could You show me Your view, or tell me where I'm wrong then? Because it's illogical for me to work for public goods(every worker has better engine), make use of joint work and then letting to sell it by someone who spent all, or most of his work for his private profits (with ignorance about others, including You).

Shd, the issue is that you can't dynamic link on a lot of gaming platforms (iPhone, PS3, Xbox360, etc.) so the dynamic vs static issue is quite big and this is where the GPL (and LGPL) falls short unfortunately.

How come the EPL isn't compatible with GPL? Is it at least compatible with LGPL if you make your code that?

_________________
-Alex
Website