Hrm, interesting point. I guess my concern is more for SDL than whether
’platforms’ (as some kind of entities) are ‘rewarded’ or not.
(Unfortunately, we as both developers and consumers have an uphill battle
convincing the platform makers to change their ways. And as a consumer,
it’s hard for me to go to a Verizon store and ask for a NON-BREW phone,
for example. :^) )
I don’t see SDL itself being adversely affected. My reasoning:
Updates/ports/bugfixes made to SDL get it running on another platform
will still get distributed upstream.
It won’t matter whether the SDL-using apps themselves conform to the
LGPL (static link with obj and/or src, or dyn. link) or to this 'new’
license Sam is considering proposing.
SDL, as an LGPL’d license, never forced developers to release their
source code to begin with.
I can just as easily create closed source apps while adhering to the LGPL
(e.g., a closed source game for Windows which dynamically links),
as I could with the proposed new license (e.g., a closed source game that
can only be purchased Over The Air for some BREW game, where I cannot
provide an object).
Of course, thinking about it more, I’m beginning to wonder myself if a
new license is truly necessary. I can simply release an ARM “.O” file of
an SDL-using BREW app. The end user can download it off a website (or I
could mail them a disc), but it will be impossible for them to do anything
Whether or not they can use it in a particular environment isn’t my issue.
“If you link other code with the library, you must provide complete
object files to the recipients, so that they can relink them with the
library after making changes to the library and recompiling it. And
you must show them these terms so they know their rights.”
“… if the work is an executable linked with the Library, with the
complete machine-readable “work that uses the Library”, as object code
and/or source code, so that the user can modify the Library and then
relink to produce a modified executable containing the modified
If they have the expensive developer tools, a contract with Qualcomm,
a proper USB cable, and have had their phone ‘test-enabled’, they
"can relink". If not, I don’t think it’s my problem.
I guess the biggest issue, at least that I see on something like a phone,
is including the entire text of the LGPL for them to read. :^/
So anyway, have I confused the issue enough now? ;^) Sorry!On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 04:27:49PM -0500, Steaphan Greene wrote:
And do you really want to “reward” those platforms that don’t allow the
user any real freedom with the special ability to obscure SDL in their
apps, while those platforms that do give their users at least some level
of freedom of usability are more restricted?
bill at newbreedsoftware.com