I'd prefer use of the MIT or Apache 2.0 licenses to the less common zlib, for what it's worth.
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 7:52 AM, René Dudfield <ren...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not sure if we should move it right now. I think so. I guess it'd be a > bit of work updating the build tools. But already many of them work off the > github mirror(s). The main work is filling in the member name translations > (but I think I could do that in an hour or so). > > Yeah, let's all shed a tear for the monoculture. But I don't see > bitbucket/Atlassian, or gitlab going away anytime soon. But if it makes > things a tiny bit easier for contributors, I'm ok with that. I've wasted > time explaining hg, and bitbucket so many times to people already. > > I think making it easier for people to publish commercial games will be > good for everyone using pygame. Currently Apple prevents people doing that > with LGPL. Otherwise I don't really care. I'm pretty sure most people would > be happy with a license like what SDL moved to (zlib). But haven't > explicitly asked everyone if they are apposed to zlib. Also, I don't know > if there is a foundation that would be willing to take it. Perhaps PSF, > Raspberrypi, or Kivy foundations are all options to ask. Just re-licensing, > and keeping the copyrights as is, is also an option. > > Why not a ctypes/runtime binded way? The main issue with ctypes, is again > Apple, but also emscripten/asmjs/webassembly. > > Why pygame using SDL2 patches by Lennard? Good question, I'm not sure > which is the better way myself. This would allow us to gradually improve > things, and reuse much of our existing code. To introduce new APIs where > needed, and keep the old ones where they are. Doing big changes can be > risky. pygame_sdl2 will require quite a bit of backwards compatibility > work... who will do that work? Was the only reason for pygame_sdl2 to avoid > the LGPL? Does it still make sense with a zlib pygame? What other benefits > does pygame_sdl2 provide? > > I'd really be interested to know from Tom and Lennard what they think. It > doesn't sound like Tom is interested in working so much on backwards > compatibility. But also, Lennard mentioned quite some time ago that > pygame_sdl2 could be a way forward. > > The main benefit of a foundation (if we don't need to run it!) is that > donations, grants and such are much easier to deal with. Whilst dealing > with GSoc and other grants things was something I was happy to be involved > with it was a lot of admin, for something which can be more easily shared > in a larger organisation (like for example the PSF). > > > > For now, my own main pygame priorities are: > > - Making the website a bit more usable. > - Trying to bring some of the pygame projects together, on github on > the website (maybe with pygame 1.9x). > - Coming to a consensus on way forward with everyone regarding > licensing, and what to base future pygame releases on (probably > pygame_sdl2, zlib, or Lennards SDL2 patches). > - Also working to make distribution of peoples games better. Both for > people who want to just show off their work, and people who want to try and > publish games. > - Fix a few remaining packaging issues, and install issues with pygame > 1.9x (like the macos thing) > - Modernise the pygame code with regards to type hints and docs. > (again, so people and newbies especially get better feedback in their > editors). > - ... make it work better on raspberrypi. > > Finally I'd like to highlight some of cool bits in pygame 1.9.3. There's > some pretty major pieces in there, that I don't know so many people know > about. > > > I think it would be pretty good if pygame zero, pygame2, and pygame 1.9 > were on github in the same organization. Also if we decided on a way > forward (with pygame_sdl2 or however) for pygame2. It feels like there's a > bit of momentum now with pygame, and getting the projects together will > only increase the excitement further. But more importantly it will let us > share our limited resources in a much better way. > > > > cheers, > > > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Thomas Kluyver <tak...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 16 March 2017 at 10:01, René Dudfield <ren...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Yeah, with the python community moved to github, it's really past time >>> to move. >> >> >> Do you also want to move the pygame repo itself onto Github rather than >> using it as a mirror? Or is pygame in maintenance-only mode, and it's less >> important to attract new contributors? >> >> I agree that it's easiest to attract contributors if your project is on >> Github, but at the same time, I'm a bit sad that we seem to be heading for >> a total Github monoculture. >> >> Thomas >> > >
