proposals for gl4java successor -> Jungle3D

OpenGL Development JOGL Development
#1

looks like yet another useless effort for me,
but anyway :wink:

  • javadoc can be created … (ant)

  • nothing usefull at this point …

  • re- design not finished …

  • participants wellcome

  • or a merge, join with jogl ?

    • open source LGPL license ?
    • sources ?

have fun …

+++

cvs anonymous checkout:

cvs -d:pserver:anonymous@cvs.gl4java.sourceforge.net:/cvsroot/gl4java login
just hit return

cvs -z3 -d:pserver:anonymous@cvs.gl4java.sourceforge.net:/cvsroot/gl4java co Jungle3D

+++

the new ml regarding jungle3d is:

https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gl4java-jungle3d-dev

+++

#2

shame Jogl is a BSD licence… :frowning: … u not going to like that dude :(… nice to hear Gl4Java2 is on the cards- been waiting a while for that…

#3

Why would I use GL4Java as opposed to JOGL?

As a user of LWJGL, I know why to use LWJGL, and when to use JOGL - there are differences. However JOGL & GL4Java is very similar (yes?). Why would I choose the one over the other?

And as a user I don’t care about licenses. I just need to select the right API.

#4

[quote]And as a user I don’t care about licenses. I just need to select the right API.
[/quote]
You don’t? I do! Although I don’t know what the BSD license actually is, but I know that GPL is bad and LGPL or MPL are ok.
So BEFORE looking to the API, look to the license! If it’s the wrong one, the API is pointless.

#5

Just has (another) read of the BSD license. Its short and simple and has pretty much the sample implications as LGPL… e.g. you can use this or play with this, but the copyright has to stay intact. Oh, and incidently, you can’t use my name.

Kev

#6

[quote]Although I don’t know what the BSD license actually is, but I know that GPL is bad and LGPL or MPL are ok.
[/quote]
I have yet to see an API that is “bad”. There are API’s that are more restrictive than others…

[quote] So BEFORE looking to the API, look to the license!
[/quote]
What good is an API with a good license, if it doesn’t do the job?

Always look at the API first, and then evaluate the license. If it costs money, so what? - if it gets the job done quicker, more easily (and has a future) - then by all means use a closed source API. However, I prefer open source projects by far!

oh, and btw: Never ever say that GPL is bad outloud, you’ll get a million GPL zealots on your back :stuck_out_tongue:

#7

[quote] Just has (another) read of the BSD license. Its short and simple and has pretty much the sample implications as LGPL… e.g. you can use this or play with this, but the copyright has to stay intact. Oh, and incidently, you can’t use my name.
[/quote]
Eeek, go and read it again. And then read it one more time!

There is a huge difference in the licenses!! GPL requires that all implementations using source code from or linking to the library be open source and GPL too. LGPL allows linking but other than that, also have the same nature of the GPL.

BSD only says that you must supply a copyright and not use creators name. What you do with the source, is your concern. Deriviative work is not required to be open source too, like L/GPL does.

#8

LGPL does indeed say if you derive from the work it must be OS. But in practice the nature of things produced under the LGPL are libraries and hence people just link to them. At which point, the BSD license has the same next effect.

GPL is a whole different kettle of underwater animals I agree. However, I was really getting at the above post which puts some empahsis on the difficultly of using the BSD license.

Kev

#9

[quote]Why would I use GL4Java as opposed to JOGL?
[/quote]
I want to know the answer as well :slight_smile: With Jogl and LWJGL we’ve got all the bases covered for gl bindings, what does this offer thats good? Better yet, why can’t this be instead added/intergrated with one of the existing bindings?

#10

What is an EXCELLENT API good for, if the license is not acceptable?

A semi-excellent API might be used instead, if the license fits.

GPL most of the time is unacceptable for non-opensource project. Most games are of that type. And thats no matter of ‘cost’ because the cost of GPL in those cases is ‘everything’.

But as it sounds, BSD seems to be OK.

#11

Re-read section 5 of LGPL… it seems that only dynamic linking is allowed without it being viral. (at least that’s how I interpret it) They clearly state that if you link code into your main program that it becomes a derived work and is now covered by the LGPL. The LGPL is a very messy license that is not clear at all.
For instance can I include LGPL code in the same JAR as the rest of my app and not have it infect MY code? The wording of the LGPL is a complete mess in that regard.

As for Jungle3D or any successor to gl4java… there is little point… put the effort towards JOGL to make it better. Or help out with LWJGL… those two seem to have everything covered. Why fragment the efforts into implementations that are all basically the same?

I would even argue that some aspects of LWJGL, namely game controller input and sound, should be merged with the JInput and JOAL projects… since it seems only the OpenGL stuff is sufficiently unique. Having those two parts in separate libraries gives you more options. I can foresee many cases where OpenGL isn’t needed, but better input or sound would help. Although I think if the core java sound were “fixed” the need for OpenAL would be nil, features of OpenAL could be built on top of ordinary java sound instead… eliminating the need to install OpenAL everywhere. Since unlike OpenGL, OpenAL is not included in most OS installations it makes game installation a bit more complex.