PocketMatrix

Hi,

This is how it works:

(1) You send me an email at johan.sanneblad@home.se asking for permission
(2) I will grant you permission if you send me an email notification before you release your game. This is simply for us to know where and how GapiDraw is used.

There are no other licensing issues. We do have not declined and do not decline use of the API as long as you notify us before releasing your software. You do now have to credit GapiDraw if you do not want to.

I have to ask this, as the licensing is still my only area of some concern with moving to GD...

You didn't really answer the question: are there any reasons that you would deny someone from using GD?

If the answer is yes, it's only fair that you state those conditions clearly so they can be avoided, or a person can choose to go with another library.

If the answer is no, and by everything I've read that seems to be the case, then why not word the licensing less ambiguously? Something along the lines of:

"The only requirement for using GD is that you send us an eMail before your product is released telling us about the product. There are no other conditions, fees, requirements, etc. that you must meet, you don't need to ask us permission to use GD, you simply have to tell us that you are".

I absolutely have no problem letting you know where I'm using GD, that seems only fair. But if you are going to grant everyone that asks a licenses regardless of any other factors, then why make someone ask at all? Why not word the licensing in such a way that this is perfectly clear?

And if there is a chance you might say no, no matter how small, people need to understand that from the beginning.

From a technical standpoint, I'm all set to role with GD, I have no concerns there. But I can see I am not the only one that still has some concern, no matter how minor, about the licensing issue.

What about non-commercial games? Is licensing still needed there?

damian: It's not required.. But please do feel free to notify me of your game anyway...