Audiere/LGPL

Anteater · Post by **Anteater** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:56 pm

Doesn't a copy of the LGPL License need to be included with Irrlicht if the TechDemo uses Adiere?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:59 pm

1. why do you want to know this?
2. i guess niko should know whats right or not.
3. if u know the answer, why ask a question like this?

jox · Post by **jox** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 3:49 pm

GFXstyLER wrote:2. i guess niko should know whats right or not.

No question, but afaik niko is also just a human being and he might make mistakes like all of us. So what's wrong with asking about it? I think it's even good that he did it.

I don't know if it has to be included. Maybe it hasn't because no source code of audiere is included. Only the binary is used and that is mentioned in the TechDemo. But I really don't know.

Electron · Post by **Electron** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 7:26 pm

difference between lglp and gpl is that with gpl an application using the library is not considred a derivative work and therefore is not bound by the terms of the license (afaik). Therefore niko is not bound to make an mention of audiere's license (I believe. Again, I'm not sure. I haven't read the lgpl in a while).

Anteater · Post by **Anteater** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 8:23 pm

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html
This is the website for the LGPL. It says that, yes, a copy of the LGPL is needed in the distribution and that the source code (of the library) is needed (or a notice saying where you can get it, which it does, "...Getting a compile error here? get Adiere.dll at...").

Electron · Post by **Electron** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:00 pm

hmm. Looksl ike ur right. LGLP is more restrictive than I thought. . .

niko · Post by **niko** » Sun May 01, 2005 7:26 am

Hm, never thought about this. Ok, so I am violating the license, too bad. I'll change this with the next release, but until now I think it is not that fatal. I don't think Chad Austin will sue me for this.

MikeR · Post by **MikeR** » Sun May 01, 2005 6:02 pm

niko wrote:Hm, never thought about this. Ok, so I am violating the license, too bad. I'll change this with the next release, but until now I think it is not that fatal. I don't think Chad Austin will sue me for this.

Especially since you are actually advertising for him.