in my opinion, if your so worried about it, _pay_ for a different engine, there are several options, ,angelo
On 12/01/2012 09:28 AM, Antony Riakiotakis wrote: >> I'm not so sure if having a GPL license for the BGE really is wanted. I >> think a lot of users worry about the security of their game project being >> jeopardized due to the licensing on normal desktop platforms, which is >> correct. With the current licensing, I'm pretty sure that you would legally >> have to release any source blend file that you bind with the GPL'd >> BlenderPlayer. > As Campbel said, sharing your source files is not mandatory. > > An important point that I feel is being missed here is that developers > are not weirdos who try to hamper > the honest work of game developers in capitalism with their stupid > choice of licences. > There's quite some difference between LGPL and GPL. LGPL allows the > source to be linked to closed code. Some of the developers are > actually not very friendly with this idea, not to mention being > friendly with Apple when it comes to 'walled gardens', monopolies, > patents etc. So combining the two, and proposing a licence change with > an air of "someone has done it, you HAVE to do it too" and with MAYBE > the promise of it then being allowed in the Apple store is not the > best diplomatic move you could do. > > Apart from this, for die hard anti-GPL people there's also this: > http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?130089-BPPlayer-BGE-Security-%281-05b-Win32-Linux64-MacOSX%29 > _______________________________________________ > Bf-committers mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > > _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
