License questions

sandelz

05-07-2007 07:12:48

Hi!

I was just wondering that how NxOgre's license is compatible if one acquires the Ogre's unrestricted license. Can NxOgre be licensed in the same way if needed?

Main concern is the console development, because if I'm correct LGPL cannot be used in closed environments(please correct me if I'm wrong).

betajaen

05-07-2007 09:49:45

NxOgre uses the "same" LGPL license as Ogre and I'm pretty sure you can use LGPL code on a console, essentially it's just a computer.

I've never done any console development, but don't they static link libraries? If that is the case, which according to the LGPL or at least interpretations of it, makes your source code - open source as well.

If you can dynamic link it, then there is no problem with it.

If your serious about console development, and can only use NxOgre in a static linked binary. As long as you don't change the source (or if you do, release the changes). I'd consider giving you permission to use it in such a way. This would be on a project by project basis though (for any future developers reading this thread) and only for consoles.

sandelz

05-07-2007 10:03:52

Hi!

Thanks for quick reply.

We had the expression that closed environments where users, for example, cannot supply their own libraries(like replacing old version of NxOgre with newer) somehow is against LGPL. It's great if this is untrue and saves a lot of trouble from us. Though it would be great if someone with more legal knowledge of GPL-licenses would answer to this. Isn't the console development license issue the main reason why the "main" Ogre added the possibility to get unrestricted license?

And for the static linking - thank you. If the need arises we will contact you more directly.

btmorex

05-07-2007 10:38:25

We had the expression that closed environments where users, for example, cannot supply their own libraries(like replacing old version of NxOgre with newer) somehow is against LGPL.

That's actually pretty much exactly what the LGPL requires. It doesn't actually have anything to do with dynamic linking, it just requires that users be able to replace the library with for example, a newer version. It would be perfectly legal to link statically and distribute your object files as well so that a user could relink with a newer library.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'd say that pretty much means the LGPL is incompatible with console development. Even if you could dynamically link there's no way for the users to replace the library without having the console development kit.