Indeed. Me too. However, SDL uses the zlib license. But I guess that doesn't mean we should automatically do that too. It might make sharing code with them easier.
On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 3:17 AM, Daniel Foerster <pydsig...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >>> >> >> >
