[ggo-discussion] Re: source code?
- From: Peter Strempel <pstrempel@xxxxxx>
- To: ggo-discussion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 15:21:26 +0100
Robert Kleemann wrote:
> I noticed that the install script was installing it
> in /usr instead of /usr/local
/usr/ looks like the standard location for binary installations to me. I
first had it install into /opt, but changed it to /usr/games after
getting some user feedback concerning this.
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH and "-s" option for the share directory.
There is also a GLGO_SHARED_PATH environment variable which can be used
instead of -s parameter, might be easier. Same result, though.
See glGo manual, Installation - Linux, quite at the end of the page.
By the way, the .tar.gz binary installer is created by EPM. That's not
common standard, but so far the best Linux installer I found which
allows me to create .deb, .rpm and .tgz files without messing with
distribution-specific stuff. I don't want to boot Debian to make a .deb,
Suse to make a .rpm, etc.
> The sourceforge project contains the source code up to
> version 0.7 but now the site appears to be abandoned. The
> pandanet.co.jp site has version 1.1 but no source code is available.
>
> Is source code no longer available for the program? I notice that the
> license says that the code can be downloaded and used but cannot be
> modified or redistributed.
glGo was originally distributed under the GPL, but I changed the licence
at some point to closed-source. As non-open-source software cannot be
hosted on sourceforge, I moved the project to another webpage. The
sourceforge project is now abandoned, I don't use the site anymore.
Why the change? Because some idiots considered it cool to change the
client-time code and got a client which made them win all games by time.
Now, who got blamed for this? They or me? Guess...
As the glGo source code is 100% written by me, I see no problem changing
the license. Used libraries are mostly LGPL except wxWidgets which can
be statically linked, and linked dynamically, except on Linux where two
libraries are linked statically (more convinient to the enduser, caused
lots of trouble when I had them linked dynamically in earlier versions),
so the glGo Linux object files are made available to comply with the
LGPL. I am no lawyer, but had the current situation checked by a lawyer,
and the result was positive.
> Is this the beta of a commercial application? What are your plans for this
> program?
I don't know how you define "commercial application". glGo will not be
sold to end-users. Not the current version, and no future version. It is
and will stay available at no charge - free as in beer. However, there
won't be any source code released because I'm tired of dealing with the
problems this creates for me.
The redistribution restriction in the license is meant to prevent
someone to sell glGo. I got a couple of requests to add glGo on Linux
Live-CDs (Hikarunix and some private CD of some school, latter not yet
released) and on computer magazine cover disks. This is no problem, and
I generally see no reason not to allow this as long as the media is
distributed a no charge (I consider magazine cover disk as "no charge"
as the customer pays for the magazine, not the software on the disk).
However, I want to prevent someone burns glGo on a CD and sells it for
$50 to some unexperienced endusers. That would annoy me to no end.
The current situation of glGo distribution and license, that is
closed-source, non-redistributable unless I give permission and
availability free of charge is the final plan for this program. Same
applies to gGo.
Peter
Other related posts:
