Time  Nick      Message
14:20 Krock     Question. I'd like to backport the minetest/lib/irr/ changes for use in other projects. Unless another license is specified, can I assume that it's licensed under MIT? (according to irr/LICENSE)
14:21 Krock     for example, the glTF code definitely cannot be backported due to explicit LGPL 2.1+ note
14:24 celeron55 my interpretation of this is that the content of lib/irrlichtmt is still MIT licensed, and everything outside is not
14:25 sfan5     i thought irrlicht's license was different from MIT?
14:25 celeron55 of course, i don't think this was ever discussed explicitly and i'm not a lawyer
14:25 sfan5     in any case as far as I'm concerned any added added or changed within lib/irr/ matches irrlicht's licenses unless otherwise noted
14:25 sfan5     added or changed *code
14:26 celeron55 uh wait, yeah, it doesn't seem to be MIT
14:26 MTDiscord <rollerozxa> irrlicht's license is zlib iirc
14:26 celeron55 in any case it's one of the permissive licenses
14:27 celeron55 it looks to be zlib, or very close to it
14:29 Krock     alright. Thanks. So we're interpreting the situation the same way, which is great. Whether it might be zlib or similar.
16:38 MTDiscord <luatic> Krock: fwiw if you want to backport the glTF code, I can ask the coauthors whether they would agree to such a relicensing. I definitely would agree.
17:10 Krock     @luatic Oh! That's great. Yes, please do ask them whether re-licensing as MIT or the "Irrlicht License" would be possible. I suppose in the long-term, other Irrlicht forks (maybe even upstream?) could benefit from a more modern model format.
17:13 celeron55 the glTF work that has been done for luanti/mt is essentially state-of-the-art. it would be nice to get as much use out of it as possible
17:15 celeron55 (in my opinion)
17:15 MTDiscord <josiah_wi> There could be quite a bit of work involved merging it into upstream because of the extensive codebase changes we did, such as reformatting. But then again, the only changes that might have conflicts are the fixes to the model class hierarchy.
17:28 sfan5     question is why do you need as the irrlicht license?
17:35 Krock     I suppose the backports could no longer be licensed under the Irrlicht license if it contains files that are more restrictive. The library would likely need LGPL 2.1+ as a whole to be legally correct. But I'm not a lawyer..