Java-Gaming.org    
Featured games (78)
games approved by the League of Dukes
Games in Showcase (429)
Games in Android Showcase (89)
games submitted by our members
Games in WIP (468)
games currently in development
News: Read the Java Gaming Resources, or peek at the official Java tutorials
 
   Home   Help   Search   Login   Register   
  Show Posts
Pages: [1]
1  Discussions / General Discussions / Re: Java3d / Jogl / etc on: 2003-07-16 16:54:10
DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, and I am not qualified to give legal advice.
Quote
DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, and I am not qualified to give legal advice.

I agree with oNyx.

You quoted paragraph two of section five. Here's paragraph one and two:

Quote
5. A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library".  Such a work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of this License.

However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it contains portions of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the library".  The executable is therefore covered by this License. Section 6 states terms for distribution of such executables.


It seems crystal clear to me that paragraph 1 is referring to dynamic linking, such as linking to a jar file, and paragraph 2 is referring to static linking.


Ok, it seemed crystal clear to me. Turns out I was wrong. According to the Free Software Foundation's Dave Turner (the man behind licensing <at> fsf.org), "This sort of linking falls under section 6 of the LGPL."

Here's a quote from section 6:
Quote
6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications.

You must give prominent notice with each copy of the work that the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this License. You must supply a copy of this License. If the work during execution displays copyright notices, you must include the copyright notice for the Library among them, as well as a reference directing the user to the copy of this License. Also, you must do one of these things:


a) Accompany the work with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code for the Library including whatever changes were used in the work (which must be distributed under Sections 1 and 2 above); and, if the work is an executable linked with the Library, with the complete machine-readable "work that uses the Library", as object code and/or source code, so that the user can modify the Library and then relink to produce a modified executable containing the modified Library. (It is understood that the user who changes the contents of definitions files in the Library will not necessarily be able to recompile the application to use the modified definitions.)
b) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the Library. A suitable mechanism is one that (1) uses at run time a copy of the library already present on the user's computer system, rather than copying library functions into the executable, and (2) will operate properly with a modified version of the library, if the user installs one, as long as the modified version is interface-compatible with the version that the work was made with.
c) Accompany the work with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give the same user the materials specified in Subsection 6a, above, for a charge no more than the cost of performing this distribution.
d) If distribution of the work is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, offer equivalent access to copy the above specified materials from the same place.
e) Verify that the user has already received a copy of these materials or that you have already sent this user a copy.


Here's some linkage to discussions on this issue:
http://linuxintegrators.com/hl30/blog/technology/?permalink=LGPL+in+Java.html
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.jakarta.poi.devel/5900

And here's a link to the LGPL itself:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html
2  Discussions / General Discussions / Re: Java3d / Jogl / etc on: 2003-06-28 17:56:53
Quote
When I made my post, I was thinking of the fact that there are currently, IIRC, something like 20 or 30 "Open Source" licenses in general use, and picking the right one should be done carefully.


Agreed.

Personally, the LGPL isn't even my favourite license, mainly due to its length and complexity. I prefer an Apache style license. Straightforward and too the point; less than a tenth the length of the LGPL.
3  Discussions / General Discussions / [url][/url]Re: My Take on: 2003-06-28 17:33:52
Quote
My scoop on the MMO genre is that its requires so much work, technology and time that maintaing and creating such a game requires HUGE cashflow.


It all depends on your expectations. If you expect hundreds of thousands of subscribers on a massive world with bleeding-edge 3D graphics ... well, yeah. You're right.

However, there are a number of indie MMO efforts which are current successes. They won't bring in millions of dollars a month, but then again, their development costs are so modest compared with the big dev houses they don't need to in order to succeed. Look at Furcadia for example, or Runescape. I've run across a few others, but I can't quite recall the URLs. There's also a few up-and-comers, like Magicosm and Pernica.

Quote
I initially thought that the home-alone developer could break in with a cool game on mobile phones, but after working on commercial product, the costs and skills involved in such work coupled with the graphics abilities of upcoming phones (nokiq ngage) makes it a difficult target for the garage startup developer.


I respectfully disagree. There are a number of indie game developers who are making a very good living at it.

Take care,
Paul
_|_
4  Discussions / General Discussions / Re: Java3d / Jogl / etc on: 2003-06-27 19:31:38
DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, and I am not qualified to give legal advice.

I agree with oNyx.

You quoted paragraph two of section five. Here's paragraph one and two:

Quote
5. A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library".  Such a work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of this License.

However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it contains portions of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the library".  The executable is therefore covered by this License. Section 6 states terms for distribution of such executables.


It seems crystal clear to me that paragraph 1 is referring to dynamic linking, such as linking to a jar file, and paragraph 2 is referring to static linking.

And, no offence, but saying you could find a lawyer who'd argue the case isn't itself a strong argument against the LGPL. In the States especially you'd be able to find a lawyer to argue pretty much anything.

Take care,
Paul
_|_

(Edit: BTW, it seems prudent to include the above disclaimer.)
5  Java Game APIs & Engines / JOGL Development / Re: Building: compilers on: 2003-06-27 15:18:19
Well, the good folks at Mind2Machine have prepared a Win32 build and made it available in the downloads section of their OpenMind Java game engine Sourceforge project. While they were at it, they compiled the other JSR-134 projects, so the download includes JOGL, JOAL, Jinput and Jutils.

http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=72173
6  Discussions / General Discussions / Re: My Take on: 2003-06-27 13:43:33
Quote
In re predictions.

I recently saw an interesting real study of the MMO market.  If I can find it again I'll post a pointer.


Was it this one?

http://pw1.netcom.com/~sirbruce/Subscriptions.html
7  Discussions / General Discussions / Re: Java3d / Jogl / etc on: 2003-06-26 22:37:57
Perhaps some hearty soul with too much time on his or her hands will port OpenSceneGraph to Java. Hel, its only 86882 SLOC  Grin.
8  Discussions / General Discussions / Re: My Take on: 2003-06-26 21:55:10
Some comments from a newbie:

Targetting indies

First off, I agree with those who state that focussing on indie developers is the way to go. First and foremost, for the most part indie devs pick and choose their own languages, APIs, tools, etc.

In the big dev houses, I don't believe those decisions are typically made by the devs, but at a much higher level in the corporate food chain. These days, game corporations, like most, are very averse to risk. Hell, just look at the games they are putting out: sequels, brand franchises, and minor variations on a theme. If they are hesitant to take a chance on a game that breaks the mould, how much more hesitant would they be to switch to a whole new development language.

These days, there's a renaissance in indie games. We're already seeing some interesting games being produced by indies, and I think this trend is going to continue.

MMOs

MMOs are an interesting topic. On the one hand, you have articles like this one (http://money.cnn.com/2003/06/25/commentary/game_over/column_gaming/index.htm?cnn=yes) from yesterday's CNN Money. The writer predicts that there will never be more than 3-5 successful games. He cites the failure to capture a large portion of either the casual market (like Myst and Sims players who don't want to pay $xx per month) and the hard-core market (like Unreal and Diablo players who don't want to pay $xx per month).

Then again, perhaps there's a market for indie MMOs. The success of Runescape and others would suggest that there is. Runescape will never reach EQ subscription levels, but indie games don't need that many players to succeed.

I should mention that I'm somewhat biased; having played a few MMORPGs, I have a hard time playing anything that's standalone  Grin.

Take care,
Paul
_|_
9  Game Development / Networking & Multiplayer / Re: UDP Vs TCP/IP on: 2003-06-25 21:29:50
Quote
JavaBear, who is your service provider?

I'm paying $45 Canadian for ADSL.. (which incidently uses PPPOE, does this effect the header compression stuff?)

The average price that I know of in Ontario is $39.95 to $44.95 Candian per month for ADSL or Cable..  around  $30 US.

I'm not sure of the 80% quoted above, but most people I know (geeks) have broadband.. so I wouldn't be suprized if it is acccurate.


My provider is Shaw Cable. I'm not sure how far their reach extends outside of Alberta.

I'm pretty happy with my cable access, but I have considered going with Telus and ADSL. They have a promotion on now offering 1 years service for $24.95 CAD per month (about $18.51 USD for comparison's sake). After that, its $34.95 CAD per month. But the main reason I'm considering the switch is the fact that they encourage their customers to set up servers at home (HTTP, etc), while Shaw forbids it.
10  Game Development / Networking & Multiplayer / Re: UDP Vs TCP/IP on: 2003-06-25 20:14:32
Quote


Wow!  Does the government subsidize it?


The government isn't subsidizing my montly bill. As for the fairly large difference between my bill and the average bill in the US ... I'll leave that conjecture to others.

The push to get broadband out to small rural and northern sites is partially subsidized, I believe up to half the cost. See http://broadband.gc.ca for details.
11  Game Development / Networking & Multiplayer / Re: UDP Vs TCP/IP on: 2003-06-25 19:50:05
Broadband is available to approx 80% of Canadians. Most of those without access are living in small towns and villages. There's a federal government program to push broadband access out to every rural and northern community.

(Edit: I should also add that I'm paying $37.95 CAD, which works out to about $28.20 USD.)
12  Java Game APIs & Engines / JOGL Development / Re: Dl-ed and Build :-) on: 2003-06-23 14:42:44
Quote
I received email today from Gerard Ziemski, the engineer at Apple working on the Mac version. He has Jogl working with AWT but there's still some issues to be ironed out. Hopefully he'll have something robust available soon.


Now that's great news. I've been kicking around the whole Java3D vs. OpenGL bindings for a bit now, and the only thing that kept me from going with JOGL was the question mark over Mac. Looks like its JOGL for me  Cheesy.
Pages: [1]
 

Add your game by posting it in the WIP section,
or publish it in Showcase.

The first screenshot will be displayed as a thumbnail.

theagentd (6 views)
2014-04-24 23:00:44

xsi3rr4x (83 views)
2014-04-15 18:08:23

BurntPizza (75 views)
2014-04-15 03:46:01

UprightPath (86 views)
2014-04-14 17:39:50

UprightPath (69 views)
2014-04-14 17:35:47

Porlus (86 views)
2014-04-14 15:48:38

tom_mai78101 (109 views)
2014-04-10 04:04:31

BurntPizza (169 views)
2014-04-08 23:06:04

tom_mai78101 (265 views)
2014-04-05 13:34:39

trollwarrior1 (217 views)
2014-04-04 12:06:45
List of Learning Resources
by SHC
2014-04-18 03:17:39

List of Learning Resources
by Longarmx
2014-04-08 03:14:44

Good Examples
by matheus23
2014-04-05 13:51:37

Good Examples
by Grunnt
2014-04-03 15:48:46

Good Examples
by Grunnt
2014-04-03 15:48:37

Good Examples
by matheus23
2014-04-01 18:40:51

Good Examples
by matheus23
2014-04-01 18:40:34

Anonymous/Local/Inner class gotchas
by Roquen
2014-03-11 15:22:30
java-gaming.org is not responsible for the content posted by its members, including references to external websites, and other references that may or may not have a relation with our primarily gaming and game production oriented community. inquiries and complaints can be sent via email to the info‑account of the company managing the website of java‑gaming.org
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Managed by Enhanced Four Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!