I would say yes, but it is possible to replace these .py files with your own implementations without technically “modifying the source”. To me it makes sense that changing the values of variables in the source code, that are readily available to be changed after the program is run anyway, should not be considered modifying the source. You’re not really changing the structure of the code, just initial values of the variables.
One last thing. Would building Panda without the functionality of some third-Party packages it comes with by default considered “modifying the source”? I would expect not.
One last last thing.
Sound suspiciously like the GPL where any programs derived from modified version of the Panda3D source must be released under the Panda3D license. Thus forcing them to be open source and again all changes to the source code of the derived version to be emailed back to Panda.Project@Disney.com .
if you check the cvs of panda you will notice that license changed to BSD (afaik).
so you’r pretty much free to do whatever you like to do (this does not include 3rd-party-libs).
i dunno in which way already existing packages are touched by it.
btw. “heavy modifications” are something else than just changing a few variables here and there. its like when you add new features or fix tricky bugs or so. at least that’s what i would understand,. anway. doesnt matter with the new license anyway enjoy!
Thomas is correct; Panda is now under the BSD license. The webpage here is out-of-date and still describes the old, custom Panda license, which everyone (especially us) hated.
Still, for the record, the original license was never intended to impose restrictions such as you describe. It didn’t actually require you to release your own modifications to the public, in the same way that the GPL does. The clause you’re quoting simply means that you can’t just throw away the license and replace it with a new license of your choosing; but since the license doesn’t impose any other usage restrictions on the code (and in particular doesn’t require you to share it with others), that clause imposes no practical limit on what you can do with the code.
We switched to the BSD license as soon as we could, to avoid endless discussions like these. Everyone is already familiar and comfortable with the BSD license, and they already understand that it imposes no usage restrictions, even though it includes a similar clause to the above (just a little more clearly worded).
Technically, older versions of Panda are covered by the version of the license they were released under, since that license had no provision to allow transparent back-porting of new license versions.
So if you wanted to be excruciatingly correct, you would get the latest version. But since the spirit of the original license was the same (if you’re willing to wade through all the legalese and convince yourself of that), and also since no one is likely to raise a fuss about it one way or the other, it probably isn’t that important in practice.
Yeah I’m pretty safe. I haven’t actually changed the source signifigantly enough in my mind to render it a major change. What was posted in the first post is the extent of the changes.
I think it raises a question (in my mind atleast) about what exactly is considered a change. I mean changing a variable's default value in the source, to save having to change it at runtime (where it could be changed at runtime), to me I don't think that should be considered a change, neither should be changing a configuration file. Anyway somebody may know more about software laws than I.
I don’t like the GPL, it restricts developers, If I like something released under the GPL I’d much rather get in contact with the designer and organise payment for a commercial version, some people however are very headstrong about this whole “free software” issue and don’t like to budge. This causes developers to play sneaky and re-write the GPL code as their own with enough changes to make the software different. It’s like paraphrasing your mates essay, you can re-word it so that the teacher doesn’t recognise the stunt, but essentially the two end up at the same conclusion (in softwares case the original developer looses out).