[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: License terms for open source game APIs (Was: Re: Is Linuxgames still alive?)
Dan Kegel wrote:
>not cheap), so they want to retain the right to offer a
>commercial version of the library; this would cost money,
>but would let other companies use our code without
>publishing their sources. People who don't mind publishing
>their sources would be able to use our code for free.
Sounds good, yes.
>At the moment, the QPL looks like the only example of this
>sort that I can understand. And the folks at opensource.org
>have given their blessing to the QPL, so I suspect it'll be
>ok for most open source developers.
I haven't read completely through it, but I think it's good.
Just one thing to note - it required (don't know if it's still that way in
the current QPL version) that all modifications have to be distributed as
patch. That's a quite annoying thing and you might want to remove that
(A)bort (R)etry (P)retend this never happened ...