I think its also important to consider that this is a _python_ library; so any program that uses soya is going to be distributed in a form that isn't all that hard to turn into something human readable, if it is not already human readable.
By nature, python doesn't lend a whole lot to closed source and trade secrets. It might be kind of silly to disregard a license change on the grounds that the library couldn't be used in such a project/product. I think the differences between gpl2 and 3 in our case are pretty transient. Personally, I prefer to stay fairly buzzword complaint, other than that it matters very little which license we use. On Dec 5, 2007 6:33 PM, Paul Furber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Dec 6, 2007 1:33 AM, julian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > from what i understand, many 'closed' development environments would > > consider the GPL ideal an ideal license in this regard. > > > > i am curious however: you gave the example of a game being developed > > using GPL'd code with no intention of redistribtion. what sort of game > > was this? > > It was a research flight simulation that was expanded into a game with > multiplayer and combat. It used a 3d library which was licensed under the > GPL. The company was (and probably still is) not in the business of > developing games or sims - it just needed one and you know how programmers > are :) > > Paul. > > _______________________________________________ > Soya-user mailing list > Soya-user@gna.org > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user > > -- This email message is public domain. Have a nice day! ^_^ _______________________________________________ Soya-user mailing list Soya-user@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user
