Im with you in this too, all i asked is how/why you will benefit of me sending a patch for a trivial change in the engine, a change that will be of use in my own implementation, like deriving all the ogre classes from CUserObject or some like that, to keep pointers to our objects from the ogre engine, but again this was already clarified, so thanksbut I'd like your opinion on this: why would we publish the source of the Ogre library freely in the first place, if there wasn't anything for us in it?
Im pretty sure you have worked with publishers, as you know, they dont care if product x is comparable to product y, what they always ask us, is how that featrure x will impact on the target market, meaning, "ok cool you can put or use these hard to spell feature/word, but can we make more money because of it? ", in this case the engine
Here in my desk i have loads of game boxes, with logos all over it because of the publicity of using some techonology, "GameSpy ready...", "Quake III engine based", "3dfx only"(long ago), "Powered by X AI engine", "Made with XXX", not because they are the best, but because they sell more, then how can you explain that there are still companies licensing the quake3 engine, the last was a few months ago, even when the q3 engine is too outdated
After saying this, keep in mind that i am with you, i like the Ogre engine and i have all the intention to support it and use it, what i needed was a clarification of some of the license issues, because LGPL is a interpretation based license, and the word from the copy holders is always good before adopting it in our ptoject