[Scummvm-devel] ScummVM License

Einar Johan Trøan Sømåen einarjohants at gmail.com
Mon Feb 1 20:52:20 CET 2016


I have a strong personal preference towards keeping the code GPLv2+. That
said, I'm open for discussion on the topic.

The major reasons why boil down to:
* I don't like licenses I can't read and grasp, the legalese involved in
GPLv3 gives me a head ache.

* I might be clashing politically with the copyleft movement on this, but I
personally prefer permissive licenses, even though I've accepted GPLv2 as a
fair middle ground (since it is fairly compatible, and not too complex to
grasp).

* I also get the feeling that GPLv3 has scared some companies/people by
it's sheer complexity, which I feel is a bit... problematic, in my mind
software is meant to be used, and preferably attract new developers, the
larger mind share involved behind GPLv2 weighs more heavily to me than the
political benefits of GPLv3.

In practice though, this entire v2/v3-situation has created a
chicken/egg-problem, a lot of projects seem to be on the fence about it,
and being the first mover might not have direct drawbacks (you can still
use all GPLv2+ code), it might lose the back-and-forth effect between
projects until enough projects are on board. Kind of odd really, how GPLv3
works with GPLv2 as a one-way street, similar to how GPLv2 works with
permissive licenses work (or indeed the LGPL).

Regarding the mentioned compatibility issue, dual-licensing GPLv2+/GPLv3+
is basically equivalent to just keeping everything GPLv2+ (since you then
have the implied auto-upgrade possiblity, which allows anyone and everyone
to license their fork under GPLv3). The upside being that you can mix
GPLv2/GPLv3 that way (end result binary/product would be GPLv3 as combined,
but you can still push stuff "upstream" under GPLv2). In summary of that
dual-licensing is a mess.

All of that said, this entire thing boils down to me being more of a
permissive-licensist.

2016-02-01 14:13 GMT+01:00 Alyssa Milburn <fuzzie at fuzzie.org>:

> On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 12:25:26PM +0000, Thierry Crozat wrote:
> > 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)?
>
> We could start by licensing all of the engine code as GPLv3+? But is there
> anyone using ScummVM code who would have a problem with just using it under
> GPLv3+?
>
> - Alyssa
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/b98c9fd0/attachment.html>


More information about the Scummvm-devel mailing list