Relicense unitsync as LGPL?

Relicense unitsync as LGPL?

Discuss the source code and development of Spring Engine in general from a technical point of view. Patches go here too.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Forboding Angel
Evolution RTS Developer
Posts: 14673
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43

Relicense unitsync as LGPL?

Post by Forboding Angel »

Among the obvious immediate reasons why, it has to do with the fact that the GPL in unitsync is toxic.

A person can't even use spring to make a closed source (non-lua) AI due to this, and of course Lobbies.

It does not make sense for unitsync to poison the well for anything that touches it as it is the entry point for so much.

There has been talk of this before. Thoughts?
Last edited by Forboding Angel on 29 Mar 2013, 09:54, edited 1 time in total.
gajop
Moderator
Posts: 3051
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 20:42

Re: Relicense unitsync as LGPL

Post by gajop »

Skirmish AIs aren't using unitsync.
User avatar
Forboding Angel
Evolution RTS Developer
Posts: 14673
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43

Re: Relicense unitsync as LGPL

Post by Forboding Angel »

They don't have to work with unitsync? My mistake. I was under the impression that C++ AIs had to directly go through unitsync.
gajop
Moderator
Posts: 3051
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 20:42

Re: Relicense unitsync as LGPL?

Post by gajop »

Well they aren't, the AI interfaces are generated and compiled into libraries for each language.

In general, you don't have to use unitsync if you don't want to (e.g., I think Licho said that ZK isn't using it).

In fact it's probably better to avoid it now for new implementation as you won't have engine-specific behavior (I think someone said that map/mod hashes depend on the engine version) which probably just complicates things if you want to run it in a multi-engine environment.

As far as licencing goes, you have to realize that to get a licence change all copyright owners (many now retired) must agree, and even if the current ones would want to, tracking down the devs that have long left this project would take a lot of work and doesn't necessarily mean they would agree.
User avatar
hoijui
Former Engine Dev
Posts: 4344
Joined: 22 Sep 2007, 09:51

Re: Relicense unitsync as LGPL?

Post by hoijui »

there has never been the slightest reason to even think about doing this.

one such reason could be, if there would be a really nice lobby, that supports many other games and engines, comes with ten-thousands of users, is well maintained, and they want to add spring support but can not, because they are BSD licensed.

the engine devs know that the GPL is toxic. that was the reason it was chosen. someone not liking this does not form an argument against it.
User avatar
Forboding Angel
Evolution RTS Developer
Posts: 14673
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43

Re: Relicense unitsync as LGPL?

Post by Forboding Angel »

Hoijui, it was one of the engine devs who mentioned the merit of changing the unitsync license to LGPL that prompted this thread.

GPL has been very detrimental to Spring in the past. You should know who I'm talking about...

But the fact of the matter is that Spring's license is wielded as a club at random times in the same way that Closed source wields their clubs (albeit with more lawyers to back it up).

Oldfags like smoth and I, and a few others around here remember the "Good ole days" (and they were definitely not good).

Relicensing all of spring is a fools errand. I think anyone can see that. Imo spring as LGPL would have made a lot more sense, but that ship has sailed, however, if the entry points were LGPL, wouldn't that be a good thing?

Others have been thinking it. Might as well have a discussion on the merits of it out in the open. If it's not a good idea, it isn't a good idea. If it is, it is. Either way, you have a thread to point at.
gajop
Moderator
Posts: 3051
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 20:42

Re: Relicense unitsync as LGPL?

Post by gajop »

hoijui wrote:and they want to add spring support but can not, because they are BSD licensed.
I don't follow. I thought you could use (certain) open source licences with GPL. Example for the BSD one: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-lis ... odifiedBSD.
User avatar
hoijui
Former Engine Dev
Posts: 4344
Joined: 22 Sep 2007, 09:51

Re: Relicense unitsync as LGPL?

Post by hoijui »

Forboding Angel wrote:Hoijui, it was one of the engine devs who mentioned the merit of changing the unitsync license to LGPL that prompted this thread.
i am not sure whom you talk about here, but i guess it is dansan.
dansan (which does a lot, but not engine dev'ing) said, that it is an option for nota-lobby devs, to ask for the LGPL license for unitsync at "the board of" engine devs.

even though he is not an engine dev, and he said nothing about "the merits of LGPL for unitsync", i wouldn't know where else you got the idea for that sentence from.

in the rest of your post, you state your feelings about this being a good thing, but there is still not the slightest reason to even think about discussing it.

@gajop
maybe i am wrong, but you can exchange "BSD" for "Closed Source" or anything else that is not allowed to link to GPL libraries, and the example would still work.
User avatar
danil_kalina
Posts: 505
Joined: 08 Feb 2010, 22:21

Re: Relicense unitsync as LGPL?

Post by danil_kalina »

Could you ( spring developers ) please release unitsync by LGPL license ?
User avatar
Forboding Angel
Evolution RTS Developer
Posts: 14673
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43

Re: Relicense unitsync as LGPL?

Post by Forboding Angel »

Hoijui, I was referring to something said by someone else some time ago. Back in the great GPL flame wars of yesteryear.
User avatar
Silentwings
Posts: 3720
Joined: 25 Oct 2008, 00:23

Re: Relicense unitsync as LGPL?

Post by Silentwings »

I can think of several projects where something became widely used, then with time its original authors left/gave it up, the project became out of date & someone else took it over without the blessing or help of the original authors. There are also lots of cases where code swapping between projects helps us, even from semi-abandoned projects. Imo in a large fragmented content dev community having GPL is by far the best option.
Kloot
Spring Developer
Posts: 1867
Joined: 08 Oct 2006, 16:58

Re: Relicense unitsync as LGPL?

Post by Kloot »

Forboding Angel wrote: GPL has been very detrimental to Spring in the past.
We (the engine developers, aka its biggest interest group) feel and have always felt that Spring gains far more than it loses from being GPL'ed.

Why can't you simply respect that as our view of what is best for Spring (which is codified through the project license) as a whole and let it rest?
danil_kalina wrote: Could you ( spring developers ) please release unitsync by LGPL license ?
no sweetie, we don't love you that much
User avatar
danil_kalina
Posts: 505
Joined: 08 Feb 2010, 22:21

Re: Relicense unitsync as LGPL?

Post by danil_kalina »

Image
User avatar
PepeAmpere
Posts: 589
Joined: 03 Jun 2010, 01:28

Re: Relicense unitsync as LGPL?

Post by PepeAmpere »

No matter what nota :: lobby guys do, its good time to answer other question: When "leaders" and their minions start respect own rules. Such respecting begins with such things as backseat moderation, that we saw many times in previouse thread. I respect its possible tool of owner of forum to solve the problem, but i hope its the last tool.

In cases you can still find in 3.2 lobby forum - reatroactive edits in such style done there weakened my trust in sense of communication on this forum. Blaming me from Transmisogyny (term, which i think we were looking for on wiki both, me and moderator :lol: ) as argument for editing my post is just one superabsurd example.

---

btw relicensing dont solve the problem with people :)
User avatar
Licho
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 3803
Joined: 19 May 2006, 19:13

Re: Relicense unitsync as LGPL?

Post by Licho »

ZKL (even though it is GPL) is not using unitsync, its not needed..

But otherwise I don't care and I don't think you can change GPL license once it was set (in an easy and "lega" way)
User avatar
jK
Spring Developer
Posts: 2299
Joined: 28 Jun 2007, 07:30

Re: Relicense unitsync as LGPL?

Post by jK »

Licho wrote:But otherwise I don't care and I don't think you can change GPL license once it was set (in an easy and "lega" way)
Yup
1. unitsync shares all its code with the engine
2. we don't want to change engine license
3. we couldn't even, cause not all resigned devs are reachable and some of those already said that they won't allow a license switch.

So if you want a LGPL unitsync, then you need to code it yourself from bottom.
User avatar
Neddie
Community Lead
Posts: 9406
Joined: 10 Apr 2006, 05:05

Re: Relicense unitsync as LGPL?

Post by Neddie »

As third party confirmation, and as someone who has always been very concerned about licensing, the case is as aforementioned in this thread;

There is no compelling reason to change Unitsync to LGPL from GPL, nor is it feasible in the case of this project. There are upsides and downsides to all licenses, which we have argued exhaustively in the past, but GPL v2 was selected reasonably and has served the interests of the project reasonably since.
User avatar
danil_kalina
Posts: 505
Joined: 08 Feb 2010, 22:21

Re: Relicense unitsync as LGPL?

Post by danil_kalina »

gajop
Moderator
Posts: 3051
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 20:42

Re: Relicense unitsync as LGPL?

Post by gajop »

Interesting read, didn't know that.
For those too lazy to read, what I understood from there is that using just the header files doesn't count as derivative work. That is, just including files isn't enough, you have to link for it to count as derivative work.

Still doesn't change much in the case of unitsync though.
User avatar
danil_kalina
Posts: 505
Joined: 08 Feb 2010, 22:21

Re: Relicense unitsync as LGPL?

Post by danil_kalina »

I didn't fully understant what you mean can you explain ?
How is unitsync header file different than what was talked on that article ?
Post Reply

Return to “Engine”