51

Re: Neverball and Neverputt for the Oculus Rift

Cheeseness wrote:

I'm anxious about licencing concerns with the Oculus library. Its licence doesn't seem to be GPL compatible, and if that's the case, pushing out release binaries with it compiled in would be Wrong (the builds we have floating around at the moment make me uncomfortable).

Has anybody else looked into this?

I have.

The Oculus license is straightforward to satisfy: 1) We are using a modified version of the library under Windows, and the GitHub repository of that source meets the sharing clause. 2) We should include the text of the Oculus License Notice in the binary distribution, as stipulated by it.

The only complication comes from the GPL. Fortunately, this is on our side so there's lots of flexibility and we're unlikely to sue ourselves. The license can be satisfied in three ways. 1) We can claim that this case falls under the system library exception. I feel that it does, but Stallman would probably disagree. If challenged on this, 2) We can grant a permission to allow this case, or 3) We can do whatever the hell we want because we're the copyright holders (up to and including declaring it closed source and selling it to Mark Zuckerface for 19 billion rupees.)

52

Re: Neverball and Neverputt for the Oculus Rift

Hey, I am not above that. Can we...? Please...?!

On a serious note, binary builds indeed do not include dependency licences as they are required to. I'll keep that in mind.

53

Re: Neverball and Neverputt for the Oculus Rift

Having recently gone through the process of contacting contributors for a smaller project with regards to licence changes, "We can do whatever the hell we want" is super optimistic (having explicit documented exceptions feels like the best way to go) hmm

I'd like to track noting dep licences in an issue. Any objections to me modifying #40 to cover that?

Cheese
==========
cheesetalks.net

54 (edited by CCF_100 2018-07-11 05:27:20)

Re: Neverball and Neverputt for the Oculus Rift

Edit: Wrong place! Sorry!