<sigh, again>I would also like to point out that AI != engine. We can use our own licenses, and with the exemption gone, we need only make sure they are GPL compatible.
Thus my point still stands. AIs use a different licensing model, precisely because they are their own separate entities, separate code base, separate projects.
It also appears Argh has yet to even look at Shard as demonstrated by his lack of knowledge, nor has he thought of the consequences of what he says ( If you follow the arguement through, you reach the conclusion that Internet explorer violates the linux kernel GPL license because it links with the linux code via networking should any linux users or server administrators decide to log onto the internet)
NO, no, no and again, NO.
There is no "separate license". Quit allowing aegis's arguments, which are largely based on suppositions about things that do not actually exist, to draw you into a totally illegal position.
There is no "it is not part of the engine". My Lua scripts aren't "part of the engine", but are GPL, because that is required, based on our understanding of the law.
There is no, "I have not considered the consequences", either. I darn well know exactly what I am saying here, and have been quite nice about allowing for a certain period to take corrective actions on your part, and have proposed a solution that would allow you to do what you need to do (gather data) whilst not having legal problems. Quit shooting the messenger here.
Lastly, there is no exemption.
Nowhere in the post cited does SJ say, "there is an exemption". If you can find evidence to the contrary, by all means do so... but in fact, SJ's posts there indicated very strongly that not only is there no exemption, but that he was opposed to the concept.
SJ wrote:The GPL explicitly states that things dynamically linking (like dlls) to GPLed code must also be released under the GPL licence (otherwise you use the LGPL or some other variant). I guess its technically Spring linking to the AI dlls in this case though so im not sure how that is interpreted. In addition to that though the AIs reuse some spring files (the interface ones) which are GPLed. So I would say that yes you have to provide source code to anyone that asks for it and you have distributed an binary to.
In short, there's absolutely no foundation for that argument, and it's not supportable by the current license at all in any case.SJ wrote:But you are still using the .h files that I created (and you have modified) and released under the GPL. And the GPL only allows you to use GPLed files in a project if you release the whole project under GPL. Probably you could create some reverse enginered .h files I suppose (well not you since you have obviously seen the original files and thus cant do a clean reverse enginering but someone that has never looked on the spring source).
In the meantime, should something that compiles and behaves vaguely like an AI show up in July that doesn't have patented technology in it, who's to know?
Stop making this a showdown, AF. We're mainly sympathetic to your plight, despite you being silly about it