New Version, and licensing?


17-02-2008 05:37:15


So I'm wondering if there's going to be another "stable" drop from svn soon?

I'm using a fairly archaic version of QuickGUI, and "do something about my shoddy GUI" is rapidly moving towards the top of my todo list. I'd like to upgrade to QuickGUI here, but only when there's something that could be considered stable, if that makes sense.

Don't mean to push any of the maintainers or anything, I'm absolutely delighted over quickgui so far! If "when it's done" is the answer, then I can keep working on other stuff for the time being :-)

Also, what's the official license on quickGUI? Last time I remember reading something about it, I think I saw something akin to "Uh, dunno, consider it the same as whatever ogre is?" Ogre is currently LGPL, but the problem with that is that it's incompatible with consoles.

If that's the case, will it be available under something like the OUL that allows me to run it on a console? I'm a tree hugging hippy so I love the idea of releasing a modified source [and always will release modified source], but I do also intend on eventually at least *trying* to release on consoles.

CEGUI is under the MIT license, and the BSD license is also decent for this stuff. I wish there were a license that demanded source release, but didn't block console development :-(

Gary (-;


17-02-2008 09:19:37

No worries. I was going to release the next "stable" version last weekend, but ran into a problem with clipping that I hadn't noticed. I'm currently working on it, but its going slow because I don't have a lot of time available for it lately.

About the license, I'd like to have users contribute back any additions, but at the same time I don't want to have any restrictions on use of the library. If you need to modify it to be able to use it you can do that. So I guess the most fitting license for this would be MIT.


17-02-2008 19:12:39

I wish there were a license that demanded source release, but didn't block console development :-(

This smells a bit like you think you can only use existing licenses like MIT etc...

You can write a license the way you want as long as it is not in conflict with legislation(s) of the legislative areas in which it is going to be used. This is based on a principle that one can not make a legally binding agreement which is breaking law.

Actually, I have seen many software EULAs which are not in line with the legislation of my country. If I choose to do so, I can legally ignore the conflicting parts of the EULAs. I think many software developers don't either know this or they deliberately forget it. Some are knowledgeable and straight enough and write a note about it into their EULAs, Microsoft being one of them.


17-02-2008 21:21:55

Well, I'm also a big fan of using already-existing licenses where such things are appropriate. MIT doesn't force end users of the QuickGUI code to recontribute their changes, but then it does allow usage on systems where the end user doesn't [or can't - as is the case with console] abide by the terms of the LGPL.

Thank-you so much for the consideration on this topic :-)

Gary (-;

PS I want to be clear - I do fully intend to release changes [although on the whole my real intention is not to modify QuickGUI much in the first place], but it's impossible to have end-users re-link their own modified versions on the console which makes the LGPL incompatible there.