| pygame has successful deployments onto steam, but it doesn't show us developers that would have used for pygame if it wasn't for licensing concerns. LGPL in scripting languages is a gray area. There are no previous legal cases to cite. Python projects have transferred away from LGPL due to its ambiguity. Example dating back to 2004: https://twistedmatrix.com/pipermail/twisted-python/2004-May/... Namely around the language of what creates a derivative / combined work: LGPL was intended for languages that use header files, like C and C++. So, if a project was ever accused of creating a combined work, they'd be on the hook to defend the the case, whether or not a combined work is created. In v2, the license even shifts the question onto licensee/licensor: "The threshold for this to be true is not precisely defined by law." In licenses such as BSD/MIT/ISC/etc. these issues do not arise, and a breeze through top python projects show reciprocal contributions and access to source are commonplace without viral clauses in licenses. I write about LGPL/python at length before here (2013): https://github.com/ScottDuckworth/python-anyvcs/issues/32#is... and (2016) https://github.com/PyGithub/PyGithub/issues/468#issuecomment... For gaming, it's even more relevant, because if the deployment is to steam or a mobile phone (like what kivy does with https://github.com/kivy/python-for-android), that could easily be interpreted as a combined work. They're not like C/C++ application linking to .so / shared libraries. |
I don't see what PyGame's motivation would be to open such cases.