Maybe “Proprietary” would fit best? I guess that’s different than “Commercial”. And I imagine they’ve received requests to add more license before; they might have some weird reason for excluding BSD and the rest.
At any rate, I don’t think we should let a little snafu prevent Panda3D from getting a lot of potential attention.
Proprietary is the more sophisticated word for “closed source”. Commercial is when it’s not free “as in beer nor speech”, Proprietary is when it’s not free “as in speech”, but might be “as in beer”. So that would not fit Panda for sure, since Panda is FOSS.
I’d say either go with the L-GPL (because it’s the closest to BSD you can get) and state it clearly in the description that it’s actually BSD, or ask ModDB to put BSD or at least “Other” with an option to fill the name by hand.
Well, typically the OpenSource world ends for you with the GPL unless you’re really into it, so I guess that might be the cause. And there are so many different licences that listing all of them would be pointless. Still, I don’t understand why, given the more general descriptions of “commercial” and “proprietary” they haven’t just put “open source” instead of “L-GPL/GPL/CC” there. That would’ve solved the problem on the go.
I wanted to talk about this but never had the time…
The only difference I know is that you don’t have to share the changes done to the library itself, unlike LGPL.
And the main difference between GPL I know is that you have to share the changes done to the library itself, but under the same GPL license
The main difference between zlib and BSD I know is that with zlib you must not claim that you wrote the original software as well, but: “If you use this software in a product, an acknowledgment in the produc documentation would be appreciated but is not required.” - so basically you can say “I didn’t write this, but I’m not gonna say who did”? That doesn’t make sense. Other than that I don’t see much difference…
RDB, I know the BSD (allowing binary-only redistribution) is very different from the (L)GPL, I’m perfectly aware of that. I just meant that from the licences available on the site the L-GPL is the closest one in general, because it’s OpenSource and it allows you to at least close your own code (gameplay code, let’s call it), if I remember correct that is. I meant to go with the L-GPL (unless you can make ModDB add BSD of course) because people looking for less-restrictive-than-the-GPL-itself stuff would search for that IMHO. And then they would find, in the description, that the engine is actually BSD, but L-GPL was used as the licence because ModDB doesn’t allow BSD as an option. My logic might seem a little strange though, I guess…
Still, asking them to put BSD (or “Other” with a text field) is the best option for sure.
Are you going to add the images from the main site? No offence, but some images like Kotodama’s don’t really show Panda3d’s features. I don’t know back when it was done, how many people did it, for how long and the game was being made and I don’t say its bad, but in my opinion people look at the screenshots to determine the features of the engine. You might say a real programmer won’t, but a real programmer might just not have the time to read the features (there isn’t a Gallery in this website for nothing)
I personally would recommend picking out a few from the main site’s gallery including Pirates of the Caribbean Online, A3P, Angels Fall First: the Second Antarean War, and–heck, maybe that is all that would be needed. That is not to say there are no other decent looking ones, but interested developers can come to this site and look through the galleries here to see the rest.
What I am more curious about is what would be set for this field:
Well, most of the licences that were available on there prior to the addition of BSD were FOSS (including GPL, LGPL and “public domain”). Besides, let’s face it–most governments aren’t really set up for FOSS projects either. That doesn’t stop us from screwing with things to get what we want.