Deprecated: mysql_connect(): The mysql extension is deprecated and will be removed in the future: use mysqli or PDO instead in /storage/content/49/145849/famitracker.com/public_html/forum/classes/dbHandler.php on line 29
FamiTracker
Even though the driver source is open, what license does it even use? And if it's GPL, then why isn't the license included in the package?
I always thought you had to redistribute the license's text file or HTML file in every GPLed package that you create (including binary & source distributions).
_______________________
Technology: the one thing that's hated & cursed at by all engineers, technologists, scientists & technicians!
The driver is excluded from the GPL license because I don't really like it for library softwares, as it forces the whole application to become GPL'd. I'm also not sure how it would work with the binary being distributed in every NSF, since the source must be easily accessible then. I don't think it would be problem, the code is never compiled or changed in the process of creating an NSF, and the music data would not be covered by it anyway.
I haven't bothered finding a suitable license for the driver. Maybe you have any suggestions? There is LGPL but it doesn't seems to work well with NES software.
You can use the GNU LGPL version 2; it's meant for use with libraries & it doesn't force entire applications created with it to be GPLed. But you can also use the MIT license instead; it's extremely liberal when compared to any GNU license.
_______________________
Technology: the one thing that's hated & cursed at by all engineers, technologists, scientists & technicians!
MIT seems a right choice to me too. I have no issue to promote the fact that I'm using the driver inside X software/game. I'm more than happy actually to do so.
And for famitracker, I have no issue for GPL'ed applications as a whole since if I update anything I can always contribute it back.
As for the driver, since I always try to promote it for games, if it would have been GPL'ed...It would have scared a few people I guess.
Good, I can continue to promote it Thanks for the clarification.
Hey, hope you don't mind me digging up an old thread, but I actually do have a question related to this that I haven't seen brought up.
I understand from reading this thread that the source is GPL and the driver is not (even in the latest version released in 2014.) However, the binary application is listed in the "about" section as being licensed under the "GNU General Public License" (but without being specific to any particular version of the license) and no license document is included in many of the official binary downloads that I've seen.
However I notice the added "License" section of the help document of version 0.4.3 onward, which lists the license as version GPL 2.0 and contains the GPL license text, making at least the status of these versions clear.
However, since this is not present in any of the earlier versions that I've seen, How does this affect verbatim distribution of the earlier binary? Last I checked inclusion of the license text by its creator was required for a program to even BE a GPL program in the first place.
I assume that since the license text wasn't included in the official releases of these earlier versions it must not be necessary for further redistribution. In this case I suppose that you're using a rather loose, non-specific take on GPL that doesn't require the text... or maybe it's not GPL at all since you didn't want "the whole application to become GPL'd" at the time (though this seems to put the "about" section's listing of the program as GPL in an odd light.)
I've primarily used version 0.3.7 and earlier, which lacks the license section, inside or outside the program, so my question still stands regarding older versions.
EDIT: Perhaps some clarification for why I'm asking is in order.
I haven't been going around distributing the binary, but I have considered the possibility of giving in-person FamiTracker lessons for the uninitiated. Depending on where these sessions might be and connectivity issues, simply giving the program out might be the simplest solution if the downloads section of the website was unreachable (although the website would be the go-to solution due to the wiki and forums). I'd hate to think that, had I done such a session and handed out my 0.3.7 (which never had a copy of the license text to start with) that this would have triggered the GPL 2.0 termination clause unintentionally.
Obvious solution is obvious. Just go ahead and upgrade. Still, I'm curious if I dodged a bullet here.
.png){kind=avatar}
) 
Thanks for the clarification.