Create THIRD_PARTY.md for external code handling

DescentDevelopers / Descent3

Descent 3 by Outrage Entertainment

GNU General Public License v3.0

2.73k stars 231 forks source link

Create THIRD_PARTY.md for external code handling #435

Closed winterheart closed 2 weeks ago

winterheart commented 3 weeks ago

Pull Request Type

[ ] GitHub Workflow changes
[x] Documentation or Wiki changes
[ ] Build and Dependency changes
[ ] Runtime changes
- [ ] Render changes
- [ ] Audio changes
- [ ] Input changes
- [ ] Network changes
- [ ] Other changes

Description

Added all external code and license notices. Install THIRD_PARTY.md on installation step.

Related Issues

Closes #429.

Screenshots (if applicable)

Checklist

[x] I have tested my changes locally and verified that they work as intended.
[x] I have documented any new or modified functionality.
[x] I have reviewed the changes to ensure they do not introduce any unnecessary complexity or duplicate code.
[x] I understand that by submitting this pull request, I am agreeing to license my contributions under the project's license.

Additional Comments

winterheart commented 3 weeks ago

STB licensed under MIT because MIT is compatible with GPLv3, while public domain may require additional explanations for re-licensing. I prefer to use clear statement on license compatibility.

Jayman2000 commented 3 weeks ago

STB licensed under MIT because MIT is compatible with GPLv3, while public domain may require additional explanations for re-licensing. I prefer to use clear statement on license compatibility.

I agree that the MIT License is clearly compatible with the GPLv3. After all, the GNU Project has an official GPL compatibilty list, and the MIT License is on that list. That being said, I don’t see why a public domain dedication would require additional explanations. That same GPL compatibility list specifically says both public domain code in general and Unlicensed code in particular are GPL compatible.

What makes the MIT License’s GPL compatibility more clear than the Unlicense’s GPL compatibility?

Lgt2x commented 3 weeks ago

STB licensed under MIT because MIT is compatible with GPLv3, while public domain may require additional explanations for re-licensing. I prefer to use clear statement on license compatibility.

I agree that the MIT License is clearly compatible with the GPLv3. After all, the GNU Project has an official GPL compatibilty list, and the MIT License is on that list. That being said, I don’t see why a public domain dedication would require additional explanations. That same GPL compatibility list specifically says both public domain code in general and Unlicensed code in particular are GPL compatible.

What makes the MIT License’s GPL compatibility more clear than the Unlicense’s GPL compatibility?

~GPL~ MIT is less problematic than the unlicense (not strictly equivalent to public domain) for a number of reasons [¹]

Jayman2000 commented 3 weeks ago

What makes the MIT License’s GPL compatibility more clear than the Unlicense’s GPL compatibility?

GPL is less problematic than the unlicense (not strictly equivalent to public domain) for a number of reasons [¹]

If that’s the reason why this PR only uses the MIT License for stb, then I would put that reason into the commit message. I think that that reason is stronger than the clarity thing, although I still don’t fully understand the clarity thing.