MP3 or Ogg Support

[Baker]

After doing a few hours of homework and reading, I'm switching to the GPL v3.

I use upgraded DirectX SDKs and under one interpretation I can't use DirectX SDK upgrades and under the other I can't use Direct SDKs at all. Under the former, I can't have the D3D and DX8 builds of my engine and under the latter features like -dinput or -ddraw must be dropped (which are quite popular --- I use -dinput myself and anyone who uses "WinQuake" for multiplayer wants -ddraw because you can get FPS as high as your system supports rather than be capped at the refresh rate).

It is my preference to be compliance with all interpretations of the GPL including those I disagree with and after reviewing the changes and the explanations of the changes for the GPL v3, it is pretty clear that DirectX SDKs and upgrades are clearly permitted as the wording is almost tailored to such.

[qbism]

*PLEASE* kill scitech's mgl

2nd that. Added benefit is that native higher-res modes become available.

Is code ripped from a GPL3 source compatible with GPL2? Or should the engine integrating that code also update to GPL3?

[Spike]

as far as I am aware, you cannot downgrade GPL3->GPL2, as you could then sidestep the added restrictions in GPL3.
But seeing as GPL2 is GPL3 compatible (as it can be upgraded - ensure that the implicit/explicit exceptions in one project are compatible with those in the other), you can continue to distribute your source under the original license, so long as the binaries themselves are fully covered by the GPL3.

[mh]

Both versions are quite clear; it's either "GPL version blah or (at your option) any later version". In other words if you recieve some GPL2 code you are at your own personal liberty to upgrade it to 3 if you want, but you can't downgrade it.

If it's code you've written yourself and you are the copyright holder, you can do whatever you please with it, of course, but you can't revoke the license on any versions you have already released, and - even if you could - somebody else who had downloaded it could always re-release it under the original license.

[Baker]

you can continue to distribute your source under the original license, so long as the binaries themselves are fully covered by the GPL3.

I have no desire to add to any weirdnesses in source code licenses so I'll no doubt be doing that.

[Baker]

Oh, so this was just a trolling thread, not a civilizated discussion, then. I'm sorry, wrong door.

I was arguing that a view has to be congruent with the reality being witnessed to be considered sane.

If the view is incompatible with the past we've seen, how can the view be correct in any way that matters?

My opinion is that views that have no predictive capability of the future we witnessed unfolding from the past are not meaningful.

It is even possible to be technically correct on paper or in theory, but for such a viewpoint to effectively be irrelevant in reality due to social reasons, author intent or a position's lack of viable arguability.

"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they aren't." - Yogi Berra