Questions regarding license Minetest

[Kenney]

Although I've read through the license that Minetest is published under, I still have some questions which I hope someone can answer:

1. Can I publish my own build of Minetest, packed with my mod(s) on Steam? (free game + link to source)
2. Can I accept donations which are made because of my mod(s)?
3. Can a crowdfunding campaign be set up to finance the creation of mod(s)?

Thanks all :)

[lightonflux]

1. Can I publish my own build of Minetest, packed with my mod(s) on Steam? (free game + link to source)

Yes.

The license allows developers and companies to use and integrate LGPL software into their own (even proprietary) software…

2. Can I accept donations?

Yes, the license allows you to sell MT. So yes.

3. Can a crowdfunding campaign be set up to finance the creation of mod(s)?

That doesn't have anything to do with MT. But yes.

[Calinou]

The license allows developers and companies to use and integrate LGPL software into their own (even proprietary) software…

Be very careful with your definition of “integrate”.

Kenney should publish the source of the game along with the binaries, else they will be in violation of the LGPL.

[Kenney]

Kenney should publish the source of the game along with the binaries, else they will be in violation of the LGPL.

That's the plan, is it mandatory to package the source with the binaries or is a separate download okay too?

[rubenwardy]

Kenney should publish the source of the game along with the binaries, else they will be in violation of the LGPL.

That's the plan, is it mandatory to package the source with the binaries or is a separate download okay too?

That's fine, as long as it is linked.

[Kenney]

That's fine, as long as it is linked.

Great! Thanks everyone :)

[Zeno]

Kenney should publish the source of the game along with the binaries, else they will be in violation of the LGPL.

That's not entirely true. If the minetest (engine) source code is modified then those changes must be published. But there is a gotcha. The thing is LGPL is not really the best license because it is usually used for libraries. In those cases the source code of the library (engine in this case) need not be published by the person using the library (game engine) if the library has not been modified -- mostly because the library/engine would not normally be statically linked. So, the safest way (IMO, IANAL, I am not speaking on behalf of the MT devs, this is my opinion only) is for Kenny to make available the source code to the minetest engine even if they don't make any engine changes at all (and if that's the case just clone/fork the official github repo).

As for the game (i.e. the bunch of Lua, textures, etc, etc), there is no onus on the person making the game to release that code at all (although I'd be disappointed if it was not). There is not restriction on the license they use (for the game, not the engine). The only restriction might be forum imposed restrictions.

Kenny has already stated their intentions and I (personally, not on behalf of the mintest team, yadda, yadda, yadda) can't see any problem at all. It's using the engine for what it's intended to be used for... a "platform" for creating games.

[Calinou]

If the minetest (engine) source code is modified then those changes must be published.

Wrong.

• The (L)GPL doesn't require you to publish your changes (such a license would be non-free, as it would fail the Desert Island test).
• Even if the source code is unmodified, it must be published when the binary is released, as Kenney is a third party.

As of recently, “LGPL” means “Lesser” General Public License and not “Library” General Public License, so it can basically be used on everything, even artwork (although in this case, there is no practical difference with the GPL).