[openal] Licensing questions
pavel.v.melnikov at gmail.com
Fri Sep 11 19:32:27 EDT 2020
Chris, thank you very much
Now everything is clear.
> On 10 Sep 2020, at 04:08, Chris Robinson <chris.kcat at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 18:22:02 +0300
> Pavel Melnikov <pavel.v.melnikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>> At first, Sorry for the long letter.
> It's no problem. Hopefully I can give a satisfactory answer.
>> MY PLANS and QUESTIONS (according to my understanding of the LGPL
>> v2.1 license):
>> 1. Upload all the source code written by me and Viktor to the GitHub
>> under the MIT License. Also mention in the LICENSE.md file that “this
>> software uses the OpenAL Soft library”, add all the copyrights of the
>> authors and add a copy of the LGPL license.
>> 1.a) May I distribute C# bindings to the OpenAL Soft library under
>> the MIT License or the bindings must be considered as a derivative
>> work and must be distributed under the same LGPL license?
> I'm no lawyer or legal expert, but I see no reason bindings couldn't be
> under the MIT license since they'd be separate from OpenAL Soft (which
> is basically just implementing the OpenAL API, of which there's
> multiple implementations with different licenses).
>> 2. Create nugget packages for all the game engine libraries and
>> upload them to the official nugget registry under the MIT License.
>> Also create a separate multiplatform (Win, Mac, Linux-es, 64/32, ...)
>> nugget package for the unmodified OpenAL Soft library that will
>> contain binaries for each platform. This nugget will have LGPL
>> license, all the copyrights, and a copy of the LGPL v2.1 license.
>> 2.a) May I create a described below multi-platform nugget package
>> and upload it to the nugget registry or should I ask you to create an
>> official release to nugget repository by the authors?
>> 2.b) if Yes, then must I add a copy of the all source code of the
>> OpenAL Soft library to the nugget or a link to the original
>> repository will be enough?
> If you didn't make any changes to the code, I think linking to the
> original repository is fine. If you do make changes, the changes need to
> be published somewhere.
> I don't know how exactly how nugget works or its policy on such things,
> but I have no problem with you creating a package for OpenAL Soft for
> your engine, as long as it's noted to not be official.
>> 3. Pack all the libraries of the engine in binary form as well as the
>> OpenAL Soft library in binary form to a downloadable archive. In the
>> license text describe that all the engine libraries are distributed
>> under the MIT License except OpenAL Soft. OpenAL Soft is
>> redistributed under the LGPL license. Also add all the copyrights and
>> a copy of the LGPL v2.1 license file to the archive.
>> 3.a) Is it OK to redistribute the libraries as described below?
>> 3.b) If yes, then must I include all the source code of the OpenAL
>> Soft library along with the binaries or a link to the source code on
>> GitHub will be enough?
> Seems fine to me. As said above, providing a link to the source on
> GitHub should be enough as long as the code isn't changed (and if it
> is changed, those changes should be provided in some way).
>> 4. Also as I understand, the games/apps written using the game engine
>> may be distributed under almost any license (even closed-source)
>> following the same rules as described in p.3 and allowing the end
>> user to modify/replace the OpenAL Soft library if he/she wishes to.
>> May be the best option will be to keep the library as a separate
>> replaceable file and not including it to the resulting .exe file.
>> 4.a) Is it right?
> As a separate dll/so/dylib is the easiest to deal with, yeah. It can be
> with the exe in one package, but static linking it into the executable
> itself would add extra (relinking) requirements on the binary.
More information about the openal