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

[Christian Reiniger <warewolf@mayn.de>]

Dan Kegel wrote:

>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.

Sounds good, yes.

>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 haven't read completely through it, but I think it's good.
Just one thing to note - it required (don't know if it's still that way in
the current QPL version) that all modifications have to be distributed as
patch. That's a quite annoying thing and you might want to remove that
clause.


Cu
	Christian
--

(A)bort (R)etry (P)retend this never happened ...