PureBasic Forums - English

Would it be too hard to provide static libs for, and as well as, the dlls provided to 3D graphics and physics?

I don't think licencing is problem (any more than the dlls).

Thanks.

Yes, it is a licensing problem (LGPL).

Okay, sorry, missed this the first time I looked (it was too obvious )

Ogre wrote:If you choose to change this, and make OGRE statically linked (we don't support this, but it's possible), your work becomes a derived work of OGRE and is covered by the LGPL too. You must either release your source, or include linkable object files of your work if you do this, so it's not recommended.

I read this as release just the linkable objects of the library, not of your work.

I wonder why people use such restrictive licences? They obviously don't mind it being used commercially.

Ogre wrote:Commercial products can be made using Ogre with no limitations other than the ones listed above

Blooming GPL/LGPL are more restrictive than commercial licences. Don't give us your money, give us (the results of) your blood, sweat and tears.

You're really hard with the LGPL. Actually you can do anything you want with it as long you keep it in a dll, which i think is very fair. Every commercial game i know have tons of DLL, so one more or less won't hurt. And it doesn't impact the executable speed or whole disk space (a static lib will just do a very big executable).. Actually they work for nothing and let you use their work in any product (including those which makes money with their work), they even give you the whole source. So i think they deserve much more respect.

Cheers to fred =)

I worked long on DracScript and I give it away for free only in the hopes that others will use it and give back in return.

Hard on the licence, yes. Maybe too hard. But I'm not knocking the ogre people.

Wonder why building a dll is more acceptable than building a lib or an obj?

that's precisely why I objected to PBSOL using the LGPL licence without an exclusion.

A little thread-necromancy, but since Ogre 1.7, the licence changed to the MIT Licence (not LGPL any more).

In light of this, could the Engine3D be bundled as a static lib now?

The main engine could be, but we have included some dependencies which would have to stay in DLL due to the LGPL license.

Fred wrote:The main engine could be, but we have included some dependencies which would have to stay in DLL due to the LGPL license.

I for one prefer everything compiled in one executable, specially on Mac. I'm not even sure if you can distribute the "engine3d.dylib" within your app package when selling through the app store. If not, you may have to use IncludeBinary, then dump it into your sandbox folder at first run. I am slowing working on a 3D game, so I will find out eventually.

As for Windows, you could always do the IncludeBinary method too, if you're wanting to just distribute a single executable.

J. Baker wrote:As for Windows, you could always do the IncludeBinary method too, if you're wanting to just distribute a single executable.

This is not allowed at any DLL! It is oft forbidden by the license of the DLL.

ts-soft wrote:

J. Baker wrote:As for Windows, you could always do the IncludeBinary method too, if you're wanting to just distribute a single executable.

This is not allowed at any DLL! It is oft forbidden by the license of the DLL.

I don't see why not. That would be like saying you couldn't include the DLL in an installer to distribute it. All you would be doing is including it in the exe until it is run for the first time. Then every time after that, you just call on it from the folder it was installed to. If what you're saying is true, then it totally contridicts distributining DLL's to begin with.

I simply do not use DLL/Dylib - thus not using the Purebasic 3D functions at all. I want my apps to either be a single .exe or .app.
On the Mac it makes even more sense (even though you're supposed to include the dylib in the .app package, I just don't want to!).

It's ridiculous that licensing makes some issues like this

Polo wrote:I simply do not use DLL/Dylib - thus not using the Purebasic 3D functions at all. I want my apps to either be a single .exe or .app.
On the Mac it makes even more sense (even though you're supposed to include the dylib in the .app package, I just don't want to!).

It's ridiculous that licensing makes some issues like this

Couldn't agree more. I'm more then willing to put "OGRE Engine" along with it's icon on a part of the startup screen, if the developer is just wanting to show what it was developed with. But if you're using someone else's code, you have to go by the rules.

J. Baker wrote:I don't see why not.

For example some DLLs have a license for freeware and a license for commercial programs. The Author will always
see if anyone use his DLL
Mostly is only forbidden to include it and use from memory like molebox oder memorymodule, but not including in
a installprogram. Some DLLs make a selftest on loading and don't work from memory or container.

Greetings - Thomas