Source Code released!

[AlexNunn]

yes, that is also from that wikipedia article, however the paragraph I posted extends what you cited.

Your proposition sounds interesting, but how would you package AndEngine separately from the application for a MarketPlace release? As far as I understood this would be necessary to avoid the problems I posted before.

What you posted was someone's opinion, but not the license. I don't think the license makes any statements about forward compatibility.

My understanding on open source has always been that the source code must be available reasonably to those who request it. It doesn't mean you have to ship it with your compiled program, and it doesn't mean you have to put it on a web site. It just means there needs to be some way for a person who requests your modifications to receive them, and in a reasonable manner.

Worst case, the LGPL gives people the right to reverse engineer the modified LGPL library from your program. You would have no legal grounds to prevent them from doing this, using your changes, etc.
They would not, however, have any legal rights to reuse your game's proprietary source code.

As far as AndEngine goes, my plan is to release my app like any other Market Place app. AndEngine will be listed in the credits, so someone could search for AndEngine on-line to see what that library is. As I haven't modified AndEngine any, if someone requested the source code, I'd simply tell them I used X version from the AndEngine site. If I make a few minor changes, I'll e-mail my changes to anyone who requests them.
Beyond that, I don't believe I'm required to do anything else.

[Nicolas Gramlich]

Hi guys,

As far as AndEngine goes, my plan is to release my app like any other Market Place app. AndEngine will be listed in the credits, so someone could search for AndEngine on-line to see what that library is. As I haven't modified AndEngine any, if someone requested the source code, I'd simply tell them I used X version from the AndEngine site. If I make a few minor changes, I'll e-mail my changes to anyone who requests them.
Beyond that, I don't believe I'm required to do anything else.

That is exactly how its meant to be

Best Regards,
Nicolas

[delirium83]

OK, that sounds reasonable =)
I just wanted to make sure the license doesn't backfire on any of us at some point in time.

[aqnuep]

Sorry for reopening the topic but I'm also worried about using AndEngine in an upcoming commerical game due to the use of the LGPL. I really like AndEngine because it is well designed and pretty easy to use but other possibilities look more and more attractive to me just because they have a more relaxed license (BSD, MIT).

Is there any chance that I could license AndEngine under the terms of another license than LGPL?

My key problem is that I cannot tell in advance whether I'll need any change to the way how AndEngine works in order to complete my app and as soon as I have to modify a single line of code of AndEngine, LGPL is causing a problem. I do not plan to release any modified version of the library only a whole game but actually I'm forced to do that and also need to publish the source of the modified library and that's kind of restrictive.

I understand that you do not want to see others using your code and release it as their own, especially if they commercialize it. However, even the BSD license would protect you against others that want to do this, without giving you credits. So I don't really understand why you restrict that much your users.

LGPL is not an issue as long as you plan to make only free apps and you are not afraid to give away your source code (at least part of it), but it is really risky for a commercial product.

[aqnuep]

I just figured out that the best choice to protect AndEngine while also allow developers to use it is the Apache License that libgdx also adopted after the complains about the LGPL. Can you check that? I'm pretty sure it would be meaningful to change to that license.

[ibilisi]

Hello, I just wanted to bring the Licensing issue back to everyone's attention. At least in part due to the recent announcements today about the recent studies about open source code and potential violations.

http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/08/potent ... -ios-apps/

Also, Microsoft has come out an stated that GPL and LGPL licensed code is not permitted in the mobile 7 marketplace.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/09 ... ic_survey/

Also, Google itself explains some of the issues surrounding LGPL in Android:
http://source.android.com/source/licenses.html

Finally I point to FSF: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html

I see many comments about "what I will do" and "this is what I'll do". But these actions, if not in compliance with the provisions of LGPL, will do you no good in an action for violation of license terms. So, merely stating on a website that you used andengine in your app is not sufficient and you are still in violation of license provisions. There is no "good enough", there is what the license requires and whether you meet these requirements fully or not.

The main aspects of the LGPL that make it difficult for compliance is based in how android applications are packaged and distributed. Google itself states that:

"LGPL (in simplified terms) requires either: shipping of source to the application; a written offer for source; or linking the LGPL-ed library dynamically and allowing users to manually upgrade or replace the library. Since Android software is typically shipped in the form of a static system image, complying with these requirements ends up restricting OEMs' designs. (For instance, it's difficult for a user to replace a library on read-only flash storage.)"

This is a very simplified analysis of the LGPL but it serves its purpose in describing the issues. No commercial app will want to either provide source, or provide a written offer for source. SO we are left with the third option, which is dynamically replacing the library. Now, in traditional java applications this may be possible by bundling jar files and allowing replacement libraries. However, as google has stated and is evident to all here, it is not so simple to replace the andengine jar file in a compiled and distributed apk.

If we look to the LGPL itself, the section at issue is section 4:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.html

Subsections a,b,c are not an issue, however, subsection d is the offending portion of code. d(1) may be possible if all andengine applications are able to externally link to a user-downloaded/installed copy of andengine, but that isn't very likely.

d(0) is the main requirement that is the the source of difficulty for LGPL and andengine.

Convey the Minimal Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, and the Corresponding Application Code in a form suitable for, and under terms that permit, the user to recombine or relink the Application with a modified version of the Linked Version to produce a modified Combined Work, in the manner specified by section 6 of the GNU GPL for conveying Corresponding Source.


As google has itself said, this is nearly impossible to do given the structure of Android apk and distribution.

Thus, I still believe that this is of concern for Andengine's continued use and growth. I simply believe that GPL and LGPL may simply be incompatible given the distribution schemes (no possibility for compliance). Further, the GPL and LGPL were originally aimed at large corps making a lot of money off of open code. While there are large players in the mobile app market, many are independent devs attempting to make something great. Restrictive or ambiguous licensing will only harm adoption by the smaller companies/indi devs while the large devs already have budgets to roll their own or hire attorneys to navigate the licensing issues.

I agree with some others here that it would be beneficial to change the license of Andengine to an Apache-type license that allows for more flexibility and is more compatible with Android distribution.

I don't think it would change the willingness of people to communicate changes/ideas or to indicate use of andengine in their apps/games. I also think that such a change may ATTRACT more people to Andengine allowing for more lucrative secondary markets and/or support. For example, look at some of the Cocos 2d secondary markets (src code, books, support).

ibi

[coder]

Nice post, ibi.

I am interested in using Andengine - I think it's great.

I am not sure how concerned we should be about using Andengine even if it uses the LGPL license.

The copyright holder is the one who is legally authorized to take action to enforce the license.

From here: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-violation.html

And given that Nicolas has stated we do not have to release our code:
http://www.andengine.org/blog/2010/11/a ... ification/

It seems we would be OK to use it without worry.

And I can see why he is reluctant to release it under the Apache 2.0 license as that might mean, I think, someone could copy the code/modify it and not have to release the changes to it.

Comments anyone?

[AlexNunn]

I agree that regardless of what any license says, if Nicolas Gramlich states how it works, we can use that statement as how we can legally use the copyright material.

I'm happy with how things are now, but if the license were to be changed, I think it would be nice if the new license has been tested in a court room. You can write up a license however you like, but until it's been legally challenged, we have no idea how the court system will read it. The reason I say this is that every open source license I've ever read is very, very confusing. Too much legalese and I can only make wild guesses as to how a judge will read it.

[CodaBrink]

I chose to use libgdx over andengine some time ago simply because of the license. You're losing users because of it.

[kashyap]

well I m interested in SNAKE game.. I want to modify it and make it a 3-D snake game.. The Snake Game given in your examples uses packages that are defined in andengine (like engine, audio etc.), so how can I get access to those packages as when I go to source the application only browses one folder in andengine n that is examples. Waiting for your reply...