[Scummvm-devel] ScummVM License

[Thierry Crozat]

Another benefit of GPLv3 we saw in recent discussions (related to the
licensing FAQ wiki page) is that, if I remember correctly, it clarifies the
legal status of providing source code on a web site (as opposed to a
physical media) for companies using ScummVM to sell commercial games and
not providing the source code in the game package.

That being said I don't really know yet what to think about the main
drawback you mention (GPLv2 project wanting to use part of the ScummVM
code). My initial thought was that it looks like a serious drawback. Is
dual licensing (or part or all) of the code base a possibility? Can it be
decided at a laterstage after the license upgrading (I assume that if
code becomes licensed under GPLv3+, adding back GPLv2 might be an issue)?

On 1 February 2016 at 11:10, Eugene Sandulenko <sev at scummvm.org> wrote:

> Hi Team,
>
> I would like to raise a question of upgrading ScummVM to GPLv3+ license.
>
> It was long believed that because of difficulties or impossibility to
> connect with some of the code contributors, we have no way to upgrade to
> GPLv3+.
>
> However, yesterday I had a chance to ask this question directly to Richard
> Stallman on FOSS (Strangerke and md5 were with me), and he explained, that
> GPLv2+ (which ScummVM is currently licensed under) perfectly allows
> so-called "autoupgrade."
>
> Why I'd like to upgrade.
>
> 1. There is certain software, particularly RetroArch's shader scalers
> which I'd like to use. I spoke to them last year, they kind of
> dual-licensed portions under GPLv2, but since that that specific branch was
> deleted from their repository on GitHub, so there are no traceable signs of
> that agreement.
>
> 2. The difference between GPLv2 and v3 is in preventing so-called
> TiVoisation when consistency checks on the platform prohibit any binary
> modifications. This may potentially touch us in the future, e.g. somebody
> could prevent ScummVM from running anything but some specific game on some
> platform, restricting our freedom (yes, it's theoretical exercise, but
> still). The second difference doesn't touch us as it deals with patents,
> but I hardly imagine that we may even consider patenting something related
> to ScummVM.
>
> Thus, the primary goal is #1. #2 is informative.
>
> The major (and only to my knowledge) drawback is that we will effectively
> prevent GPLv2 projects to reuse our code. Say, DOSBox or Linux will have to
> upgrade too if they want to build-in portions of ScummVM.
>
> So, thoughts? Complains?
>
>
> Eugene
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
> APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
> Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
> Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311&iu=/4140
> _______________________________________________
> Scummvm-devel mailing list
> Scummvm-devel at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/scummvm-devel
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.scummvm.org/pipermail/scummvm-devel/attachments/20160201/4fb5ee66/attachment.html>