LGPL proposal

[KAMiKAZOW]

I'd like to propose a switch to LGPLv3 from GPLv3.

Rationale:

The GPL makes it impossible to legally ship it the library a game not licensed under a GPLv3-compatible license. I'm imagining the possibility that in the future some abandoned freeware game using DLSS could be modded to support FSR instead. With LGPL a modded version of the game could be distributed (provided that the game allows for redistribution). The license of the library would still be a copyleft FOSS license, so everyone redistributing and modifying the code would still be required make the library code available as well.

This PR, if accepted, renames the original LICENSE.md file to GPL.md and adds the LGPL as LICENSE.md. Since v3 the LGPL is only a set of additional provisions to the GPL, therefore both files need to be present to make up a complete license text.

In case you didn't give licensing much of a thought and the choice for the GPL was a bit random, I'm happy to answer questions, as I'm a bit of a nerd for FOSS licensing.

[Nukem9]

I chose GPLv3 - at least initially - to act as a deterrent while still allowing others to interact with the code. You're correct about not giving it much thought. I'll attempt to explain some of my current reasoning.

The GPL makes it impossible to legally ship it the library a game not licensed under a GPLv3-compatible license.

Intentional.

I'm imagining the possibility that in the future some abandoned freeware game using DLSS could be modded to support FSR instead. With LGPL a modded version of the game could be distributed (provided that the game allows for redistribution).

I'd call this a fairly contrived scenario but it isn't 100% unrealistic. If I could guarantee that my code or binaries were shipped with full games, and only full games, I'd have no qualms relicensing. To my knowledge generic licenses aren't capable of such restrictions. That leads us to my problem...

All code aside from dependencies was created in my spare time. I want the code to be open source. I do not, under any circumstances, want dlssg-to-fsr3 bundled as a "mod pack", paid or free, unless it also abides by GPLv3 or is given explicit permission to do so. Patreon and endless reuploads of outdated DXVK builds are the main driving force behind these decisions.

Unfortunately, this probably wasn't the response you were looking for. I'm not convinced about a relicense in the near term. I don't know what the future holds.

---

Additional relevant context (although it's not exactly pertinent to you):

As of right now the GitHub repository doesn't compile. The majority of the code is available. Binary builds are free, however rehosts and reuploads are forbidden by its license. I hoped to set the bar high enough that it'd require a competent software engineer to get them working.

[KAMiKAZOW]

I do not, under any circumstances, want dlssg-to-fsr3 bundled as a "mod pack", paid or free, unless it also abides by GPLv3 or is given explicit permission to do so.

Well, this is a bit of a misconception because the GPL allows this. The GPL only covers distribution and combining both GPL and non-GPL works at home isn't really covered by the GPL. That's basically how NVidia gets around the GPL of the Linux kernel when distributing their drivers.

Let me be a bit blunt: You're fighting a losing battle here. Modders don't care about licensing. Modding commercial games in almost all cases is already copyright violation.

If you were to choose a more liberal licensing option like the LGPL, you give more freedom to those who want to respect licensing and "modders" don't care either way.

All code aside from dependencies was created in my spare time.

This is a far fetched possibility but not completely outlandish: Ever considered applying at Collabora to work on Proton?

Binary builds are free, however rehosts and reuploads are forbidden by its license.

In case anyone else reads this: What you're doing is completely legal. As sole copyright holder you're free to relicense binary builds however you like.

[Nukem9]

I know a vanishingly small number of people care about licensing. I'm aware I can't track down every violation. That's never been the goal. It's a matter of time until I encounter several people I dislike and it's justification for making their lives harder, if need be.

This repo hasn't even been around for a month. Relicensing may be jumping the gun a bit. If you or anybody else can provide a concrete example of game(s) benefitting from LGPLv3-ing the code, I'll change my tone.

The PR can be kept open & serve as a reminder.

This is a far fetched possibility but not completely outlandish: Ever considered applying at Collabora to work on Proton?

I appreciate the thought, but VKx discord members were clear about clean-room RE years back. I've spent large chunks of my life reverse engineering games and Windows internals. Any contributions are tainted.

[KAMiKAZOW]

If you just want to make the life harder for them, isn't the obvious solution to not distribute binaries?

[HKunogi]

I see, that's why i had a hard time building it from source, don't makes much sense to difficult building from source though, its still doable, in that case could as much be explained and easy to do imho.