The developers of Game Dev Tycoon have finally detailed the actual reason on why the Linux version isn't yet on Steam and isn't as up to date as the Windows and Mac versions.
You may remember we spoke to them about why Linux has fallen behind and they couldn't actually tell us why, now we know then!
The basics of it are that they use glibc that is under the Lesser General Public License (L-GPL) that can be used in commercial applications, but they didn't note that down anywhere and didn't include the license file along with it. It seems like an easy mistake as they say they use the node-webkit package which itself uses glibc on Linux, but the node-webkit package apparently doesn't note down it uses it (so it's not directly their fault they claim).
Sad when things like this happen it's not just the developer suffers, but so do we. Thankfully it seems like it can be easily resolved with their blog post by noting it's used on their website and including the license with the games files.
Although their blog post says they will offer the license on their credits page, if you read the credits page the license text states it should be included with the software, I hope they don't miss that out and have problems again so I have made sure to point this out to them.
I hope the FSF re-instates their rights to use it soon so we can get an updated version and have it on Steam.
Trailer
I will most likely pick myself up a copy once this is all resolved as I love this type of sim game.
How do you feel about this folks? Could things like this catch out more developers? Is there something we can do to help them?
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
You may remember we spoke to them about why Linux has fallen behind and they couldn't actually tell us why, now we know then!
The basics of it are that they use glibc that is under the Lesser General Public License (L-GPL) that can be used in commercial applications, but they didn't note that down anywhere and didn't include the license file along with it. It seems like an easy mistake as they say they use the node-webkit package which itself uses glibc on Linux, but the node-webkit package apparently doesn't note down it uses it (so it's not directly their fault they claim).
Sad when things like this happen it's not just the developer suffers, but so do we. Thankfully it seems like it can be easily resolved with their blog post by noting it's used on their website and including the license with the games files.
Although their blog post says they will offer the license on their credits page, if you read the credits page the license text states it should be included with the software, I hope they don't miss that out and have problems again so I have made sure to point this out to them.
I hope the FSF re-instates their rights to use it soon so we can get an updated version and have it on Steam.
Trailer
YouTube videos require cookies, you must accept their cookies to view. View cookie preferences.
Direct Link
Direct Link
I will most likely pick myself up a copy once this is all resolved as I love this type of sim game.
How do you feel about this folks? Could things like this catch out more developers? Is there something we can do to help them?
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
0 Likes
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
All posts need to follow our rules. For users logged in: please hit the Report Flag icon on any post that breaks the rules or contains illegal / harmful content. Guest readers can email us for any issues.
Cheeseness Sep 11, 2013
Yet, I don't see every piece of software on my Linux distribution acknowledging that they use glibc and shipping a copy of the LGPL with it. It's a standard system library.It sounds to me like the real issue is that they didn't include the licence details (which every Linux distribution does), and that because of that, they need to now make everybody aware that they were distributing glibc.
0 Likes
Yet, I don't see every piece of software on my Linux distribution acknowledging that they use glibc and shipping a copy of the LGPL with it. It's a standard system library.It sounds to me like the real issue is that they didn't include the licence details (which every Linux distribution does), and that because of that, they need to now make everybody aware that they were distributing glibc.
What they did not!
FSF made a mistake, which they have now to clarify. That is the real story here.
0 Likes
Cheeseness Sep 11, 2013
What they did not!So the game didn't come with libc.so (or didn't have it statically built in)?
FSF made a mistake, which they have now to clarify. That is the real story here.
0 Likes
What they did not!So the game didn't come with libc.so (or didn't have it statically built in)?
FSF made a mistake, which they have now to clarify. That is the real story here.
Exactly note-webkit is merely dynamically linked to the existing glibc (.so) on the end-user machine... like almost every other linux program does.
0 Likes
Cheeseness Sep 11, 2013
Exactly note-webkit is merely dynamically linked to the existing glibc (.so) on the end-user machine... like almost every other linux program does.Hmm, I managed to get my hands on the demo, and it doesn't appear to be distributed with any libs aside from libffmpegsumo (I'm uncertain of what is statically linked though). That said, I grabbed the now-hidden download URL from Google's cached version of their download page - it's possible that those packages have been updated to not include stuff that was previously distributed.
If they weren't distributing glibc (whether statically linked, as a .so or built into another library's .so), then one has to ask why they'd write a blog post that said they had been.
0 Likes
I seriously doubt the software company has told us all the facts, frankly. Because I've been following the FSF for a fair number of years, and their track record is pretty clear: They always ask nicely first and try to work with people who aren't in compliance. They generally only move to pulling the license if people refuse to take action--maybe because they do something like ignorantly imagine something like dynamic linking means they can duck their responsibilities. It doesn't. That's an old, old notion which I thought dead these many years.
My guess is that the FSF contacted them, they blew the FSF off, the FSF came back with the license suspension, they finally got a legal opinion and were shocked to find they had no leg to stand on and the FSF never loses these things, so they quickly got back in compliance and issued the communique someone linked to, to save face and give the impression they just had no idea.
My guess is that the FSF contacted them, they blew the FSF off, the FSF came back with the license suspension, they finally got a legal opinion and were shocked to find they had no leg to stand on and the FSF never loses these things, so they quickly got back in compliance and issued the communique someone linked to, to save face and give the impression they just had no idea.
0 Likes
I don't think that is what happened - read more about it here:
"Important: Use of GLIBC in node-webkit and licensing"
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/node-webkit
In any case, this is all really weird!
"Important: Use of GLIBC in node-webkit and licensing"
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/node-webkit
In any case, this is all really weird!
0 Likes
Cheeseness Sep 12, 2013
I seriously doubt the software company has told us all the facts, frankly. Because I've been following the FSF for a fair number of years, and their track record is pretty clear: They always ask nicely first and try to work with people who aren't in compliance.The post from the devs say that their first notice from the FSF arrived at a time at which they weren't able to respond to it immediately and it took them some time to confirm (of feel confident) that they were in fact communicating with the FSF, so it does sound like there was potentially an early non-confrontational attempt at communication.
It's hard to imagine that the developers would get away with hiding key aspects in their post if that post was part of the stuff that the FSF requested they do before they could obtain a licence again.
I don't think that is what happened - read more about it here:I think you mean this URL https://groups.google.com/d/topic/node-webkit/csl3efXAg9U/discussion
"Important: Use of GLIBC in node-webkit and licensing"
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/node-webkit
In any case, this is all really weird!
0 Likes
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me