This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision | |||
proton:license [2012/07/31 00:07] seth |
proton:license [2018/07/28 07:14] (current) seth |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
Here is the reasoning: | Here is the reasoning: | ||
- | * A GPL/LGPL license removes the ability to protect and hide your private code and introduces various licensing limitations concerning propriety code that are not helpful especially on mobile platforms. | + | * A GPL/LGPL license removes the ability to protect and hide your private code and introduces various licensing limitations concerning proprietary code that are not helpful especially on mobile platforms |
- | * If Proton was zlib free, someone would eventually GPL a branch and start adding features to it, which could not be shared with the main distribution which has a much more open license. (This happened with my zlib licensed game Dink Smallwood - I was unable to use community improvements from a GPL'ed version when doing the mobile port, for instance) | + | * If Proton was zlib free, someone would eventually GPL a branch and start adding features to it, which could not be shared with the main distribution which has a much more open license. (This happened with my zlib licensed game Dink Smallwood - I was unable to use community improvements from a GPLed version when doing the mobile port, for instance) |
- | * Proton's license is specifically written in such a way that it can't be GPL'ed or effectively branched (possible, but considering the attribution license requirement, unappetizing at best), so there will only be one distribution | + | * The no attribution license for a fee option allows someone to use Proton in a place where attribution is impossible/undesirable |
- | * The no attribution license for a fee option allows someone to use Proton in a place where attribution is impossible/undesirable without opening Proton up to the issues of branching mentioned above | + |