LGPL Licence on IPhone question

LGPL license need link dynamic to support closed source developing,but on IPhone you can't do it.So,many library need a license change for that.
cocos2d is a example.http://www.cocos2d-iphone.org/wiki/doku.php/license

I have to say Orx is great,but I can't use it in current license....


  • edited April 2010
    Hi Jtianling, as it says on the front page, Iarwain is happy to discuss other licensing options. I particularly like static-linking myself, so I personally would be happy to see such an exception made (A bit like the Ogre Graphics Engine does.) Really, it's up to him though, so perhaps drop him a message directly to discuss exactly what you need?
  • edited April 2010
    Hi jtianling,

    I've always been puzzled by this part of the LGPL but you can assume the same kind of changes to the LGPL for orx than the one you found for cocos2d.

    Actually I'm in the process of finding a less restrictive license for orx as you're not the first one to point out some freedom of use issues with it. We didn't pay much attention when we chose a couple of years ago but we'll try to do it right this time.

    In the meanwhile you can officially consider that for any platform requiring static linking (such as iPhone) you can use orx wihtout having to redistribute any part of it (source or compiled objects).

    I'll keep you posted when we've chosen a less restrictive license. :)
  • edited April 2010
    Ok, so orx 1.2 won't be licensed under LGPL.

    Right now we are considering 3 options:
    - MIT license
    - Zlib license
    - Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License

    Any comments/recommandations?

    (Orx 1.2 will be released as soon as the iPhone beta test is over. Probably in about 2 weeks.)
  • edited April 2010
    I'm happy for your open mind.

    new ogre used the MIT license and not LGPL with a exception for IPhone.

    MIT license only make people keep a license file to declare they have used the library without any other restriction.
    LGPL make people open source if have any change in the library and only can dynamic link with the library if you want closed source.
    zlib license allow people use code without any limit.

    I thought MIT is enough free, but zlib is too free.
  • edited April 2010
    MIT license is what I'd vote for if given the chance.

    I like to be credited for my work, even if it's as simple as 'readme' file somewhere that no one will ever actually read ^_^.

    The "Do what you want" license lacks a professional touch in my opinion. I'd certainly never put it on anything I was serious about.
  • edited April 2010
    Thanks for both your opinions!

    I liked the MIT but I have to admit I've been seduced by the simplicity and freedom of the Zlib. I'm afraid people would not use orx because they have to include a license file, especially in the gaming field.

    I wouldn't use the WTF, but I like its definition by essence, and licensing should be as easy as that. :)

    Anyway, the licensing change will happen with orx 1.2 release that will probably also include the new SDL/OpenGL/OpenAL plugins for windows/linux/mac.
  • edited April 2010
    I kinda felt the MIT one was the best too. I actually, though, think maybe a BSD might be good if you like the MIT one, as it seems essentially the same, except the names of the copyright holder can't be used in promotion, aka, people can't make a copy of Orx and say their version is "iarwain approved" without your consent.


    I'm no lawyer, though, so idk which would be best. :)
  • edited April 2010
    That's true.

    If I trust wikipedia there are also some versions of BSD licenses which don't contain this clause: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License#Comparison_to_other_licenses

    I'll give more thoughts about it but the more I think of it, the more I tend to prefer the zlib one. :D
  • edited April 2010
    just re-read all the various licenses... now that I'm up to date, yes. Zlib is win! :D
  • edited April 2010
    I'm sorry I was wrong.
    Zlib license also need a license text included.

    from WIKI:
    The license only has the following points to be accounted for:

    * Software is used on 'as-is' basis. Authors are not liable for any damages arising from its use.
    * The distribution of a modified version of the software is subject to the following restrictions:
    1. The authorship of the original software must not be misrepresented,
    2. Altered source versions must not be misrepresented as being the original software, and
    3. The license notice must not be removed from source distributions.

    The license does not require source code to be made available if distributing binary code.
Sign In or Register to comment.