[aquaria] SDL2 patches...

[Henrik Holst]

No problem for my small patches either, but I wonder if it's really the
license that is the problem since the linkage is the other way around.

I.e a library used by a GPL program cannot be a derivative, it's the
program that is the derivative of the library so it's probably more a
question of Steam not wanting to distribute open sourced programs since
they don't want end users to be able to modify it in order to cheat etc.

/Henrik Holst
Den 23 jul 2013 16:31 skrev "James Le Cuirot" <chewi at aura-online.co.uk>:

> On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 16:20:31 +0200
> "False.Genesis" <false.genesis at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ahh, the dreaded GPL, always a problem. Then I propose to change the
> > license from GPL to something less restrictive (MIT?) if this is
> > somehow possible, as it would change things for the better. Imho
> > there's no reason to keep these (legal) barriers.
> > Really, what is the difference between GPL code and patched up
> > non-GPL code that almost completely resembles the GPL one. Not in a
> > legal sense of course; legally this is pretty clear even though it
> > feels a bit stupid.
> >
> > Thoughts on this? Is it even still possible at this stage? Is that an
> > option to consider or is it totally out of question?
> > I just really think it'll avoid further complications and be better
> > for everyone, even if it's just to make lawyers happy.
>
> As one of the contributors mentioned (albeit for a tiny patch), I have
> no problem with this and agree it would be of more practical benefit.
>
> Regards,
> James
> _______________________________________________
> aquaria mailing list
> aquaria at icculus.org
> http://icculus.org/mailman/listinfo/aquaria
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://icculus.org/pipermail/aquaria/attachments/20130723/07865575/attachment-0001.html>