I am working on a plugin development team. Since our plugin is open
source, I was wondering if it is a nono to include in our trunk the
EP1-SDK and the OB-SDK files?
iirc, you can't gain access to the sdk unless you purchase games.
Is this assumption correct?
Thanks,
Keeper
If you mean whether the assumption whether you can get the Source SDK
without buying a game or not, then the answer would be yes.
Forsaken released their codebase with the version of the SDK they're
using, and many other teams have done so. Technically it's against the
terms of use, as far as I
People do it anyway, but Valve's lawyers will frown on you distributing the
SDK code.
As far as GPL goes, I'm pretty sure that GPL is incompatible with Valve's
license, and it's therefore not possible to make a GPL server plugin. You
can make an LGPL plugin though, no problem, as LGPL permits
As I understand GPL3, as long as you provide all the source code to build
the application then you are fine. In which case we could not _legally_ be
in compliance with that licensing. Which is why I was asking. I think we
can be open source, but I think the version of license that we are using
Does the GPL also cover libraries that you use, though? As I
understand it, all of *your* code could be covered under the GPL,
while Valve's is still covered under there license, and doesn't need
to be supplied. It would probably be a royal bitch to decouple the
code that much though, especially
When I read up on the GPL3 this morning. You have to provide all the source
code allow your application to compile. It's geared towards 100% open source
applications. So for licensing your plugin as open source, it seems that the
Lesser license is what we need to use since we don't (and
Eww... yikes, I can't imagine GPL3 being a viable license for a large
chunk of projects then. Stick with LGPL, it seems to make the most
sense out of all the OS licenses.
--Bob
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Keeper hl2li...@afksoftware.com wrote:
When I read up on the GPL3 this morning. You
All this license bullshit. What's the point.
garry
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Bob Somers magicbob...@gmail.com wrote:
Eww... yikes, I can't imagine GPL3 being a viable license for a large
chunk of projects then. Stick with LGPL, it seems to make the most
sense out of all the OS
I'm a bit surprised that no one even bothered to check the Free Software
Foundation's very brilliant and well-documented FAQ for this.
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF:
Can I apply the GPL when writing a plug-in for a non-free program?
If the program uses
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.
You're right. You should just accidentally all of valve's engine codes to
the webs.
-Original Message-
From: hlcoders-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com
[mailto:hlcoders-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Garry Newman
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 1:57 PM
To: Discussion of
Nothing new here, The Battlegrounds modification has distributed the SDK
code for a very long time (as it is an open-source mod). I don't think Valve
has ever noticed or cared...
http://www.bgmod.com/downloads/bg2src.html
If you are not a for-profit enterprise don't expect Valve to bother
12 matches
Mail list logo
