License of source code

[mape]

I'm really glad to see that the project has been released and that it is open source.

Currently the project on Github is missing a license though, is this something that has been decided on?

[zino]

If you check the source you'll see it's GPLv3+.

[cybereality]

The license is GPL3+ like zino mentioned. I put the license at the top of each file that was original code. I have also included some 3rd party libraries with the source code, but those may have their own licenses (check the source code).

[ElMatarife]

Any thoughts about building an LGPL version for use as a library in other titles? I can think of a lot of open source games that would like to include this for Rift support out of the box.

[zino]

Any thoughts about building an LGPL version for use as a library in other titles? I can think of a lot of open source games that would like to include this for Rift support out of the box.

Which would those be? I can't think of a single open or closed source project that would make sense for.

[ElMatarife]

There's no official word on an open source dev kit yet. This driver is possibly the closest thing that's available for any kind of open source development.
(I think a few of the open source titles have switched to LGPL but I might be crazy. Yeah, almost all of them are cross platform but they could at least experiment with this in Windows builds for now.)

[zino]

This* is not an SDK and does not provide something you would want in your game. If for some insane reason someone would still want to do it either

a) Don't distribute your personal test projects.
b) Make sure you fullfill the GPL obligations.
c) If you want to use the driver as is, make it a separate download.

That said, LGPL is fine, I just don't see how it would ever matter. If you pull in parts of the source the obligations are pretty similar for GPL and LGPL.

* As a sidenote, I can not use the full or even part name of the driver. It's too cumbersome and hard to remember. We need a TLA or abbreviating for daily use.

[2EyeGuy]

Most open source games tend to be OpenGL these days. And they're usually compatible with GPL.

Some small parts of the code in ViP would be useful for adding 3D or Hillcrest support to open source games, but I don't think we should use it for adding Rift support when there will be a proper Oculus SDK. If the Oculus SDK isn't compatible with GPL..... just pretend that it is! DirectX isn't compatible with GPL, and neither is the Windows API, but GPL applications still link to them. Just consider the Oculus Rift to be a platform and the APIs to be part of that platform. Because that's pretty much what it is.

[zino]

There is an exception in GPL for libraries identified as "System Libraries". So most of the win32 interfaces including DirectX are compatible with GPL linkage.

[2EyeGuy]

The point was that you can consider the Rift to be a system and it's SDK to be system libraries. That's how I consider it.

[cybereality]

The reason I went with GPL is so that someone doesn't take the code and try to sell their own driver with it.

If a developer wanted to add Rift support to their game, they would not use this driver. They would use the Rift SDK directly.

[Fredz]

The reason I went with GPL is so that someone doesn't take the code and try to sell their own driver with it.

Actually with the GPL license anyone can sell your driver as is, or even a modified version as long as they make the code available to the buyers.

That's what happened to FlightGear with Flight Pro Sim, which is sold for $50 without a dime reversed to the developers and without their consent. There's nothing they can do about that. Ethically questionable but perfectly legal.

See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FlightGear ... stribution

[cybereality]

Ah yes. But they would still have to release the code, which is fine by me.