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....
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.
Right now we are considering 3 options:
- MIT license
- Zlib license
- Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License
(Orx 1.2 will be released as soon as the iPhone beta test is over. Probably in about 2 weeks.)
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.
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.
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.
I'm no lawyer, though, so idk which would be best.
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.
Zlib license also need a license text included.
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.