Inside3D!
     

MP3 or Ogg Support
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Inside3d Forums Forum Index -> Engine Programming
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Baker



Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1538

PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 7:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

After doing a few hours of homework and reading, I'm switching to the GPL v3.

I use upgraded DirectX SDKs and under one interpretation I can't use DirectX SDK upgrades and under the other I can't use Direct SDKs at all. Under the former, I can't have the D3D and DX8 builds of my engine and under the latter features like -dinput or -ddraw must be dropped (which are quite popular --- I use -dinput myself and anyone who uses "WinQuake" for multiplayer wants -ddraw because you can get FPS as high as your system supports rather than be capped at the refresh rate).

It is my preference to be compliance with all interpretations of the GPL including those I disagree with and after reviewing the changes and the explanations of the changes for the GPL v3, it is pretty clear that DirectX SDKs and upgrades are clearly permitted as the wording is almost tailored to such.
_________________
Tomorrow Never Dies. I feel this Tomorrow knocking on the door ...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
qbism



Joined: 04 Nov 2004
Posts: 82

PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
*PLEASE* kill scitech's mgl

2nd that. Added benefit is that native higher-res modes become available.

Is code ripped from a GPL3 source compatible with GPL2? Or should the engine integrating that code also update to GPL3?
_________________
http://qbism.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Spike



Joined: 05 Nov 2004
Posts: 944
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 6:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

as far as I am aware, you cannot downgrade GPL3->GPL2, as you could then sidestep the added restrictions in GPL3.
But seeing as GPL2 is GPL3 compatible (as it can be upgraded - ensure that the implicit/explicit exceptions in one project are compatible with those in the other), you can continue to distribute your source under the original license, so long as the binaries themselves are fully covered by the GPL3.
_________________
What's a signature?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mh



Joined: 12 Jan 2008
Posts: 910

PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 7:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Both versions are quite clear; it's either "GPL version blah or (at your option) any later version". In other words if you recieve some GPL2 code you are at your own personal liberty to upgrade it to 3 if you want, but you can't downgrade it.

If it's code you've written yourself and you are the copyright holder, you can do whatever you please with it, of course, but you can't revoke the license on any versions you have already released, and - even if you could - somebody else who had downloaded it could always re-release it under the original license.
_________________
DirectQ Engine - New release 1.8.666a, 9th August 2010
MHQuake Blog (General)
Direct3D 8 Quake Engines
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Baker



Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1538

PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Spike wrote:
you can continue to distribute your source under the original license, so long as the binaries themselves are fully covered by the GPL3.


I have no desire to add to any weirdnesses in source code licenses so I'll no doubt be doing that.
_________________
Tomorrow Never Dies. I feel this Tomorrow knocking on the door ...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Baker



Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1538

PostPosted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 11:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

frag.machine wrote:
Oh, so this was just a trolling thread, not a civilizated discussion, then. I'm sorry, wrong door.


I was arguing that a view has to be congruent with the reality being witnessed to be considered sane.

If the view is incompatible with the past we've seen, how can the view be correct in any way that matters?

My opinion is that views that have no predictive capability of the future we witnessed unfolding from the past are not meaningful.

It is even possible to be technically correct on paper or in theory, but for such a viewpoint to effectively be irrelevant in reality due to social reasons, author intent or a position's lack of viable arguability.

"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they aren't." - Yogi Berra
_________________
Tomorrow Never Dies. I feel this Tomorrow knocking on the door ...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Inside3d Forums Forum Index -> Engine Programming All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Page 5 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2004 phpBB Group