[IGDA_indies] the LGPL

[Brandon J. Van Every]

Tom Spilman wrote:
>
>  Still my point was unless you're a high profile developer it's highly
> unlikely you'll be singled out for prosecution.

Dude, we're indie game developers, not hobbyists.  We're all trying to
get rich.

> In fact I bet there are GPL
> and LGPL violations all the time which go undetected... some of them
> *intentional*.

Yes, but I'm not interested in that business model.  Aside from ethics,
I don't really want to be the first LGPL test case.

> > And what if your platform doesn't have shared libraries, and
> > you must link statically?
>
>  There are no ambiguities in this case... static linkage
> requires releasing your code or object files.

Yeah, that's the point.  LGPL is not a commercially acceptable license
if your platform forces static linkage.

> > I'm not willing to tie my hands and say I'll
> > never port my PC game to a console.
>
>  So leverage it now for the PC and replace it when you're a "big fat
> moneymaking commercial success".  Nothing keeps you from replacing the
> LGPL'ed libraries you use with a commercial library or your own code.

Well, I suppose I haven't thought through the economics of various "port
to console later" strategies.  Jason's idea of a licensing Style Guide
is sounding better and better.  Unfortunately, I have 5 competing
projects in OCaml-land right now to consider, so I won't volunteer.  My
short Style Guide is "advance the cause of open source MIT/BSD licenses
for commercial development."


Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

"The pioneer is the one with the arrows in his back."
                          - anonymous entrepreneur