Jonas makes a good point, you do own the copyright and you can make an exception for the Source Engine code if you like, even if it's not really in the spirit of the GPL license.
While this discussion is going on I would like to recommend a more permissive license such as the MIT license. Licenses like that basically say, "You can do anything you want with this code, just give me credit for it." I like licenses like that because they increase adoption of your software but you still get the credits for it (in a perfect world where people give credit for that kind of thing.) GPL or LGPL forces anybody who wants to distribute modifications to distribute the sources for it too, which is nice, but if somebody wants to build an enterprise application with your code then that kind of requirement is prohibitive. People tend to think, "I don't want anybody to profit off my hard work," but I tend to think the other way around, "I want people to profit off my hard work because it increases my reputation and value as a programmer." I'd rather go into a job interview saying, "I wrote code that was used to build this list of enterprise applications," than having to say, "I wrote great code that nobody uses." There's my two cents, good luck. -- Jorge "Vino" Rodriguez _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlcoders
