I noticed the old license is still there. Is it going to be updated soon?
I contacted the FSF/GNU. They seem to think that the Panda3D license, the new one with the word ‘should’ in it, is still not a free software license. They said that it would be a free software license “If the legal department wants to clarify that it’s a request”.
They also said that the Panda license is not GPL compatible, and that “You can’t combine (whether by linking or otherwise) GPL-incompatible
code with GPL code.” So it would seem to mean that no GPL code can be used with Panda3D, and that anyone who writes code with Panda3D cannot release their code under the GPL. I think the LGPL would be fine though.
It would be good to get this sorted out and to have Panda3D with a genuine free software license plus GPL-compatibility. Panda3D’s ‘free software’ status is one of its major strengths for me, because my work is aimed at schools and academic environments, so I don’t want to be tied up to some expensive proprietary engine or commercial game or to suffer any practical restriction due to non-free licenses (such as not being able to change the source code of the engine). At the moment Panda provides most of this but the remaining license issues present a possible obstacle to my using Panda3D in my research.
The FSF suggested I use Ogre3D instead, but Panda3D’s focus on rapid development, full Python support, collection of 3D models and affiliation with Carnegie Mellon give it some real advantages over other 3D engines.
The new license is in place. Thanks, Josh!
Well, this is all just a legal opinion, of course, which is to say, it’s just speculation as to the way a court is likely to interpret the license, should it ever come to court. Although I agree that the license will be clearer and stronger when this text is removed altogether, and we are still waiting for our legal department to fix this, this is what we have for now, and I think it is pretty clearly intended as a request as it is. In fact, I have a hard time imagining anyone interpreting it otherwise. But you are free to make your own opinions there.
I don’t follow this reasoning. The GPL has certain requirements, and one of them is that any code that is combined with code under the GPL is also considered to be under the GPL. It follows that in an application that combines GPL code and Panda3D code, the Panda3D code used in that application would be simultaneously under the GPL and the Panda3D license. But since the Panda3D license imposes almost no restrictions on what you can do with the code, I don’t see how that poses a problem.
The standard IANAL applies, of course. I will contact the FSF myself for further clarification of their concerns.
David
Ah, I think I understand. I haven’t heard back from RMS or the FSF yet, but I see now the incompatibility with the GPL. It’s this sentence in the license:
You may not offer or impose any terms on any source code version that alters or restricts the applicable version of these terms or the License.This sentence says that the Panda3D license is the most restrictive license that may be applied to the Panda3D code. That’s a good thing, of course; we wouldn’t want, say, an evil software corporation to make their own version of Panda, call it MS-Panda, and release it under a proprietary non-free license. It’s very important that we require the Panda3D code to remain under a free license.
But the GPL is a more restrictive license than the Panda3D license. This sentence says you can’t apply the GPL to the Panda3D code. Since the GPL requires that it be applied to any code that is used with other GPL code, we have a fundamental incompatibility.
Hmm. This will be a lot harder to sort out. Still, if the LGPL is OK with you, then at least that’s an acceptable workaround.
David
That’s good news!
I think I agree with you about the interpretation of ‘should’ in the license, it looks like a request to me but I look forward to the clause being removed completely. From the FSF’s point of view, I can imagine that they can’t go around saying licenses with possibly ambiguous clauses like this are free software licenses, because then everyone might start inserting troublesome clauses into otherwise good licenses.
In what way is the GPL a more restrictive license than the Panda license? Because the GPL requires everything that links with it to also be GPL?
I am happy to use the LGPL for any code I produce for now, but I’m definitely glad to hear you’re talking to the FSF about GPL compatibility because I would prefer to release my code under the GPL. Also, I am used to using free software, I use GPL code in my academic work all the time, and although I can’t yet think of any particular piece of GPL software I would want to use with Panda3D, there is of course a potential roadblock there due to the incompatibility problem. I can see how that one might be more difficult to resolve, good luck with it.
Tbh: I flew over most of the latest messages… just want to threw in my point of view. According to my knowledge Panda3D MUST be GPL because fmod is GPL. So IPKnightly worked a way around that to be not in the need to use fmod nor the alternative given with Panda3D. But as long as Panda3D ships fmod, you guys will be in trouble as long as you didn’t pay the creator of fmod the needed money to let him distribute the fmod code with another license…
But away of fmod I would highly suggest a licensing model like Trolltech uses it. A GPL (or GPL compatible) Version that allows to create GPLed code and a license that allows to create content without the need to ship the source code with it… A GPL-only version will scare money based programmers away, but a non-GPL-based-only-system will/might scare free programmers away that need to rely on other GPLed code…
K… hope, that most of my post was not redicolous wrong 
Regards, Bigfoot29
I don’t see any evidence that FMOD is licensed under the GPL. Please back up this statement.
You are right. FMOD is under LGPL. Was late yesterday 
Sorry for telling wrong facts…
Regards, Bigfoot29
FMOD is LGPL? So why were people working around its licence? Wasn’t there a “noncommercial only” footnote somewhere?
I am getting nuts… no clue where I read it, but somewhere I read it that its LGPL… after checking it SERIOUSLY i saw that its a fully commercial license that allows non-commercial use for free but otherwise charges big amounts of $$
I guess I am too lazy here in that case… I like to code, not to read or study licenses… 
But that is something that I need to learn…
So PLEASE ignore all my posts in this thread because they are mostly nonsens…
Regards, Bigfoot29
What happened to this issue?
I checked the license and it seems that things stopped after the ‘should’ was added :s Any way of being used with GPL’ed code found?
I would like to know too. I like to release code I write under the GPL. Panda3D’s current license is not GPL-compatible, and so I have to resort to the LGPL. And the presence of that ‘should’ sentence means that the Panda3D license is not even a clear example of a free software license. This makes me wonder whether I should really be giving my time to developing code for Panda3D, when there are other game engines released under free software licenses. An update would make me feel a lot better.
Maybe someone from the Panda3D team could contact the FSF, and ask for advice on how to modify the license to make it:
a) A free software license
b) GPL compatible
Although I think the best solution would be if Disney just released Panda3D under an existing free software license.
Thanks for any update!
I completely agree. We have been working towards this since the first post of this thread, and lately we’ve actually been making some progress, but still it takes a very, very long time to get things like this done within a major corporation. I do apologize.
David
no need to apologize… Panda3D is here and its free (as free in free beer and free in free speech).
GPL MAY be the cream topping, but on the other side it forces the programmer to develop using the GPL licence. So Panda3D being NOT GPLed isn’t a bad thing right away. However, thats a huge thing to discuss. I can live with both things. GPLed Panda3D or other licenses such as the LGPL or whatever other license there is as long as we are able to use and modify the source code and redistribute the used/modified material.
But, through… it would be nice if the developers using Panda3D would be in the need to publish the changes they have done to the Panda3D core. Especcially bug fixes or enhancements would help the project quite a lot
- And its a big question what licence would match “my” wishes best…
Regards, Bigfoot29
Regards, Bigfoot29
if Panda3D is released under the GPL license, the engine is not usable for commercial software products without giving away the source code of these projects - which is (unfortunatly) not acceptable in most of my cases.
from a commercial point of view (and that’s what i’m interested in) this is not good. the GPL is not the cream topping as far as i’m concerned.
something in spirit of the LGPL would be more suitable (changes have to returned to the community, still no need to release your projects code, etc.).
that’s also the reason why Python never adopted the GPL but is using a less restrictive, but free license. Ogre 3D is using the LGPL (see ogre3d.org/index.php?option= … &Itemid=65)
i am strongly hoping Panda3D will follow this path (especially the way Python has handled the situation). Python can be adopted in commercial and free software environments and that’s a big plus.
david, is there any information you can share about the upcoming license change to ease my mind? will an upcoming license take this into account? will we be able to use upcoming releases for commercial products?
cheers,
kaweh
IANAL (and IAN our lawyers here at Sim Ops Studios 
), but I have a hunch that we would be sad people if a full GPL license were adopted by the Panda project. I’ll have to consult with our legal team to find out our stance on this issue.
One thing I’ve never been clear on is the “Independent and separate works” clause of the GPL. I get the sense that the scripts driving my game wouldn’t be considered independent and separate, since they all import direct.directbase.DirectStart (and have essentially no functionality lacking the Panda3D engine). If Panda were GPL licensed, would the scripts driving my game also necessitate a GPL license to legally use Panda3D? Or would the only components that must be GPL licensed be the portions of the game engine that we actually changed (such as altering the behavior of DirectStart or extending functionality of the particle panel)?
I would assume that—as with other projects that have undergone a license change—previous versions of Panda3D (1.2.3 and prior) would still adhere to the previous license. So if one cannot abide by the GPL, I would suppose that worst-case scenario, if the project ends up going full-GPL, one could fork one’s engine at the 1.2.3 branch and begin development in-house from there, adhering to the previous license.
My 1 cent on this issue; I’m certain I can get another cent from our legal department eventually
Take care,
Mark
Not to worry. First, we are hoping to achieve a much less restrictive license than the GPL, such as the MIT (a.k.a. X11) license. Although we admire the principles espoused by the GPL, we’re realistic enough to realize that it’s not suitable for everyone. In fact, the current Panda3D license, as objectionable as it is, was originally crafted to be as unrestrictive as possible; and that’s what we’d like to continue to strive for.
Second, Fixer is absolutely right: whatever license we decide to apply to future versions of Panda, the current version has already been released under its existing license. So if aliens take over all of our brains and the entire VR Studio suddenly becomes evil, the worst we can do is force the community to begin a forked development of Panda3D from its current version. We can’t legally take back what’s already been released.
But you have my personal assurances that, barring a visitation from a flying saucer late one night, I have no intention of letting that evil development happen. The VR Studio has already benefited, in several small but important ways, from the fact that Panda3D is open source and free, and we intend to keep it that way forever.
David
thanks a lot, David! this is great to know. Panda3D is such a great engine - kudos to you and the VR Studio team that made it possible that we can use it and your tremendous support.
cheers,
kaweh