Re: License terms for open source game APIs (Was: Re: Is Linuxgames still alive?)

[Michael Maher <mike@redhat.com>]

> Yes, they are definitely more free than GPL. 
> However - Activision hopes to be able to get back some return
> on its investment (they did pay me for several years, and I'm
> not cheap), so they want to retain the right to offer a 
> commercial version of the library; this would cost money,
> but would let other companies use our code without
> publishing their sources.  People who don't mind publishing
> their sources would be able to use our code for free.

They might want to do a QPL then.  This might be the best license to look
at from your standpoint.  Much like QT apps, if people write free open
source apps then it's free.. if they want to write commercial apps or not
release source they are then charged a fee by trolltech.  This sort of
license may be the most reasonable for Activision.   

Check out the  http://www.troll.no/qpl/ stuff for more details on this
license. 

> At the moment, the QPL looks like the only example of this
> sort that I can understand.  And the folks at opensource.org
> have given their blessing to the QPL, so I suspect it'll be
> ok for most open source developers.

I didn't read far enough before writing.. yes.. the QPL is probably your
best solution.  I don't know if the netscape one is as good as the QPL. 
IMHO QPL is fine and a perfectly fine way to release packages. Free stuff
remains free and commercial apps have to pay to the package authors. 

What does activision think about releasing all the old activison games
prior to 1990 as open source?  Atari roms like pitfall, river raid, etc
would make some slashdot/media hype if you could release that stuff with
emulators and full source. :-) 

-michael maher