I love the Xenoblade image
Licensing isn't fancy stuff for most end-users (and developers) but this was a very interesting article about an important issue. I guess this should serve as a model for others to make careful licensing decisions from now on, especially for young emulators.
I didn't know it was that complicated. In my opinion, permission from contributors should be assumed if they don't answer the email after some time, let's say 30 days.
This is probably a stupid question, but here it goes...
Was RachelB's death a roadblock for this? Given how long it was in the works, I assume no, but without insider knowledge, I can't say for certain.
(05-26-2015, 10:38 AM)I.S.T. Wrote: [ -> ]This is probably a stupid question, but here it goes...
Was RachelB's death a roadblock for this? Given how long it was in the works, I assume no, but without insider knowledge, I can't say for certain.
Morbid as it is...
Even if it was not already consented to, the estate would have the ability to consent to relicensing. So it would not have been a problem anyways.
I didn't understand why someone wouldn't accept to change the licensing from GPLv2 to GPLv2+, but it seems that at least someone didn't agree. What was the alleged reason and what were the person's contribution to dolphin? Is this code change going to affect Dolphin in anyway?
Thanks
could anyone describe about the advantages gained by moving to GPLv3 from GPLv2 ?
Quote:People will be free to interpret Dolphin's code as being GPLv3 licensed. In practice, GPLv3 only adds more restrictions to the license, and since the code is still GPLv2 licensed people can ignore these additional restrictions if they wish so
What are the differences in restrictions between those two ? what are the restrictions in the first place ? A brief explanation would be nice.
It more or less gives Dolphin the freedom to collaborate with other licenses that GPLv2 wasn't compatible with. It has no real implications for Dolphin itself otherwise.