devlib: forced to GPL your demo

category: general [glöplog]
I saw the notice for devlib and thought this would be a great tool, then I saw on their home page that they used GPL and not LGPL.

This means that if you write a demo with devlib, you must publish the source code to your demo.

I don't see many groups publishing the sources to their demos and I wonder how this will affect the adoption rate of devlib.

Any comments?
added on the 2004-03-02 19:55:43 by legalize legalize
Why would anyone touch GPLd code? (If its not to submit a patch for an application they use?)

Surely there are no GPL fans on the demoscene, or if there are.. They are not many, and probably the bad coders who you probably never seen a demo of.
added on the 2004-03-02 20:25:41 by Hatikvah Hatikvah
If your precious sources are really top secret and you really care about GPL that much, chances are you can probably go through writing a wrapper for it as well.
added on the 2004-03-02 21:07:20 by 216 216
afaik you don't need to release your sources as long as you just use the libs and don't change them...
added on the 2004-03-02 23:03:49 by beavis77 beavis77
KAi: thats LGPL (Lesser General Public License or whatever)
added on the 2004-03-02 23:38:34 by Hatikvah Hatikvah
i don't even have a license
added on the 2004-03-02 23:58:12 by lithis lithis
_216_: its not a matter of caring about GPL or not. If you use devlib, you are legally required to GPL your code that uses it.
added on the 2004-03-02 23:58:40 by legalize legalize
legalize: I think he meant something among the lines of "who needs devlib if you can write your own?"
added on the 2004-03-03 00:06:00 by Gargaj Gargaj
Really, why is it that most demogroups are not releasing their source code for their productions? What do you have to hide?
I personally would like to see a lot more free demos, and that is why I chose GPL (and not LGPL) for a number of libraries and tools that I'm developing for the new demo that I'm writing (and the source of the demo itself will be GPL ofcourse).
Learn to share people, it won't hurt you as much as you think
added on the 2004-03-03 00:33:51 by Nuclear Nuclear
a) "don't care about gpl" == "don't care about law" in this context.
b) false, you'd just be using it without permission then. this is different from actually agreeing to a contract. if anyone decided to bitch about it you'd just be forced to quit using devlib.
c) the wrapper thing is a perfectly legal workaround albeit tedious for the user. there's nothing gpl can say about your code if it doesn't contain gpled code. "#include blah.h" and calling functions there in source form doesn't count as such.
d) what the heck is devlib anyway?-)
e) last but not least: heck, why not opensource the code then? if you have done things right, it's coded at 5am after 20 bottles of beer using the most horrondeous kludges ever and no-one likes to watch it unless he's somehow obsessed about porting it or something;)
added on the 2004-03-03 00:34:37 by 216 216
I just hate the entire GPL idea, its not free, its just stupid. Its opensource, but never free.

If you go opensource and "free" , go BSD, or just opensource with a license that says "HAHA, no copyrights to you mistah!"..

Oh and yes, wtf is devlib? ;)
added on the 2004-03-03 00:38:07 by Hatikvah Hatikvah
Hmm.. first of all, although devlib seems to have some nice features, I get the feeling only parts of it will be usable for most coders.

So I don't think it being under a GPL license will affect its adoption, since the people using it typicallly won't have any revolutionary, top secret code to hide....
added on the 2004-03-03 00:39:28 by gammawave gammawave
Not that I want another GPL debate, but...

It doesn't matter if you like GPL or the ideological reasons for its existance. There are two valid reasons to use gpl:

1) You agree with the philosophy of the FSF, and want to contribute to their vision of a "Free World".

2) You're using a piece of GPL:ed code which you find invaluble and don't want to replace with code that's under another licence which you prefer. Your need for the code outweighs any objections you might have against releasing your code under the GPL license.

If none of these are satisfied, you will simply have to find/code something that provides the same functionality or drop that feature.

Now, stop whining, people.... regardless of religion.
added on the 2004-03-03 00:49:13 by gammawave gammawave
If everyone was releasing their sourcecodes all the time we would be flooded with cut'n'paste demos with one effect from here and one from there. Half the fun with coding is not to know how an effect is done and struggle with ideas how to create it (atleast for me).
btw, how is this GPL controlled. Will they force developers to give up their sourcecodes and how will that be possible? They strange thing since internet became so popular is that nowadays clicking an ok button seams to be the same thing as signing a contract.
added on the 2004-03-03 00:55:30 by ekoli ekoli
ekoli, RTFL!
It's not like it's hard to find information about GPL.

Bottom line:
You do not have to accept the GPL license, but then you have no right to spread the code - or programs including the code - at all.
added on the 2004-03-03 01:09:07 by gammawave gammawave
well, ofcourse I know what GPL is. Let's refrase my question. Is there anyone that bellives that either the police or a court would care if someone used some library from the internet and didn't give a damn about what the license agreement ( or whatever ) said the someone can do and can't do? I don't think so.
Nah, the GNU / GPL has never appealed too me. Either it's public or its not. If I release source code on the internet I mus't be aware that people can use that in their own code without giving me credits for it. Ofcourse that's wrong but if I don't wanna risk it I wouldn't release it in the first place.
Open sourcecode that someone owns copyright for will lead to a whole bunch of problems in the future. Just remeber that some jerk seeked a patent for stencil buffer shadows a couple of years after it was first used. Things like this could be possible in the GNU / GPL world when someone "invents" some kick ass method that's a part in some lousy GNU library. Then all of a sudden that method is "owned" by gnu and no one will be able to use it. If someone makes a similar routine they can still claim it as a violation of their lovly GPL laws and call for a copyright trial.
No, free is free and this is not it.
added on the 2004-03-03 01:53:56 by ekoli ekoli
I can't believe the nonsense I am reading.

The free software foundation believes deeply that code should be available to everyone in this universe. In fact, the GPL was created so that no company can take open source code, include it in its products and sell it. If there wasn't the GPL, it could be possible that all Windows users today would be actually running linux underneath :-) (and pay for it, when it's actually free). The source code should be free, like the air we breathe.

Also, I strongly believe, that just because the library is GPLed, it doesn't mean your demo has to be too. I mean, Red Hat is selling its Advanced Server product (it's not free), which includes the GPLed Linux kernel. How do they do that? SuSE does something similar btw. So I guess you can use the library in your demo, as long as you provide the library itself in source code and everyone will be happy.

You don't trust the opensource hippies? Why then find a proprietary library in binary form and pay for it. Or look in the shareware domain.

I think that 20 years of Microsoft monopoly has done alot more serious damage than BSoDs, spamming zombies and virus outbrakes. In *peoples brains*.
added on the 2004-03-03 02:10:13 by moT moT
If the library is GPL:ed, the demo has to be too.
What has selling to do with if it is GPL or not? The license does not in any way say that you can't sell the software. You can sell gnu emacs to people for $1000000 if you find someone stupid enough to buy it from you instead of downloading it from somewhere.

A company is very free to take GPL:ed source code, include it in their product and sell it AS LONG AS IT IS GPL TOO.

Check your facts goddammit!!!

And while your at it, try to understand the difference between copyright and patents...
added on the 2004-03-03 02:37:53 by gammawave gammawave
stefan: your concern about the GPL is either a troll or an oxymoron.

here, feast your eyes on things worthy of concern:

BB Image
added on the 2004-03-03 02:43:32 by Shifter Shifter
I heard the sources to Candytron NT and Candytron 2000 were leaked onto kazaa a couple of weeks ago.
I guess I should say that I do not have anything against GPL as a concept, just that I don't think its right for every project. I have code on sourceforge that has both LGPL and GPL packages.

I don't have a problem with code being under a different license and being able to use libraries without requiring open source of the consumer of the library. (Which is what the "lesser" GPL is about, but ironically you can do more with the lesser license than you can with the regular license.)

I like the X Window System license, for instance. It lets you adopt chunks of it (or wholesale) into a selling product, but everyone contributed back and the core was better for everyone as a result. Vendors can contribute when its set up so that they can benefit by contributing.

shifter my first bouncing boobie pouet thread, thanks
added on the 2004-03-03 03:56:45 by legalize legalize
thom: lol, sure it was.
gammawave: Oh my god! What a whole bunch of crap I've wrote tonight. Arguments without points as flat as a piece of paper. Sorry for making you ( or anyone read that )!
Note to myself: Never write when having a screaming baby jammed up your ear in the middle of the night. ;-)
added on the 2004-03-03 09:07:51 by ekoli ekoli
Really, why is it that most demogroups are not releasing their source code for their productions? What do you have to hide?

I guess most are ashamed of their crappy, unreadable full-of-quick'n'dirty hacks code. ;)
added on the 2004-03-03 10:49:10 by tomaes tomaes