Am I reading the License right?

kikabo · May 20, 2004, 1:55pm

I’ve seen comments here about closed source projects yet the license here
http://www.libsdl.org/license.php seems to say that one way or another you
have to provide your source, I’m a bit confused …

If so, does this mean that DirectX is Freer that SDL ?

please don’t tell me that this is the biggest irony of all time

Matt_Wilson · May 21, 2004, 7:52am

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

kikabo wrote:
| I’ve seen comments here about closed source projects yet the license here
| http://www.libsdl.org/license.php seems to say that one way or another
you
| have to provide your source, I’m a bit confused …
|
| If so, does this mean that DirectX is Freer that SDL ?
|
| please don’t tell me that this is the biggest irony of all time

I haven’t actually read the entire LGPL myself, but as companies such as
Loki (who used SDL in their ports) weren’t required to distribute the
source code (or object code, AFAIK) then I’d hazard a guess that you’ve
missed something.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFArbVMms1059AAPcwRArdfAKCx8VKzUD1LwzzDwjS0P+o1qG80owCeJ5lN
mJanrArJG7w68uuxCpBCspA=
=Ec24
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Tom_Spilman · May 21, 2004, 7:56am

The LGPL allows for “dynamic” linking against the library while you keep
your source code closed. This means use SDL from a DLL ( or the equivalent
on other platforms ) and your all good.

Tom> -----Original Message-----

From: sdl-bounces+tom=sickheadgames.com at libsdl.org
[mailto:sdl-bounces+tom=sickheadgames.com at libsdl.org] On
Behalf Of Matt Wilson
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 2:53 AM
To: A list for developers using the SDL library. (includes
SDL-announce)
Subject: Re: [SDL] Am I reading the License right ?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

kikabo wrote:
| I’ve seen comments here about closed source projects yet
the license
| here http://www.libsdl.org/license.php seems to say that one way or
| another
you
| have to provide your source, I’m a bit confused …
|
| If so, does this mean that DirectX is Freer that SDL ?
|
| please don’t tell me that this is the biggest irony of all time

I haven’t actually read the entire LGPL myself, but as
companies such as Loki (who used SDL in their ports) weren’t
required to distribute the source code (or object code,
AFAIK) then I’d hazard a guess that you’ve missed something.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFArbVMms1059AAPcwRArdfAKCx8VKzUD1LwzzDwjS0P+o1qG80owCeJ5lN
mJanrArJG7w68uuxCpBCspA=
=Ec24
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

SDL mailing list
SDL at libsdl.org
http://www.libsdl.org/mailman/listinfo/sdl

Bill_Kendrick · May 21, 2004, 8:08am

Heh, isn’t this right there in the FAQ? (And, if one reads the LGPL license
itself, right there in the license, too!!?)

Why is it every 6 months someone has to start asking silly questions about
the license?

-bill!On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 02:56:52AM -0500, Tom Spilman wrote:

The LGPL allows for “dynamic” linking against the library while you keep
your source code closed. This means use SDL from a DLL ( or the equivalent
on other platforms ) and your all good.

Michael_Rickert · May 21, 2004, 8:07am

— Tom Spilman wrote:

The LGPL allows for “dynamic” linking against the
library while you keep
your source code closed. This means use SDL from a
DLL ( or the equivalent
on other platforms ) and your all good.

Tom

Not just dynamic either. Pretty much the rules are:

If you’re modifying the library itself, all
modifications must be open source.
For programs using the library, it must be possible
to insert a different version of the library. This can
be done via:
Making the program source
Dynamically linking the library
Staticly linking the library, but providing all the
object files necessary to recompile the program with a
different version of that library.

IANAL, but these are good rules of thumb (I’ve heard)
for the LGPL.__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Domains ? Claim yours for only $14.70/year
http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer

kikabo · May 21, 2004, 8:09am

I haven’t read the LGPL myself either, if it is that you don’t have to
supply source then great but I think that the license page is more than
a bit misleading.

Michael_Rickert · May 21, 2004, 8:10am

— Michael Rickert <@Michael_Rickert> wrote:

— Tom Spilman wrote:

The LGPL allows for “dynamic” linking against
the
library while you keep
your source code closed. This means use SDL from
a
DLL ( or the equivalent
on other platforms ) and your all good.

Tom

Not just dynamic either. Pretty much the rules are:

If you’re modifying the library itself, all
modifications must be open source.

For programs using the library, it must be
possible
to insert a different version of the library. This
can
be done via:

Making the program source

OPEN source >_>;

(I cant type it would seem)> 2) Dynamically linking the library

Staticly linking the library, but providing all
the
object files necessary to recompile the program with
a
different version of that library.

IANAL, but these are good rules of thumb (I’ve
heard)
for the LGPL.

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Domains ? Claim yours for only $14.70/year
http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer

Sami_Naatanen · May 21, 2004, 8:11am

What the license requires you to do depends how you use it.
So here are the possible scenarios:

unmodified dynamically linked SDL
no need to provide anything although it is recommended that you save the
SDL sources you originally used, so that people can get those from you.

modified dynamically linked SDL
the recommendation above changes to necessity.

statically linked SDL
just as the cases above, but in addition you have to provide the object
code of your program so that anybody can relink their own version of
the SDL to your code. You of course can provide the sources instead of
the object code.

If I remember correctly Loki used a hybrid of these cases:
Ie they provided only astatically linked program without the objectcode
AND the same program as dynamically linked, so that people who wanted
to modify the used SDL could do that with the dynamically linked
version. This way the others got a fully working program without the
pain of makeing sure that the system has the correct version of SDL
library.On Thursday 20 May 2004 16:55, kikabo wrote:

I’ve seen comments here about closed source projects yet the license
here http://www.libsdl.org/license.php seems to say that one way or
another you have to provide your source, I’m a bit confused …

kikabo · May 21, 2004, 8:13am

Why is it every 6 months someone has to start asking silly questions about
the license?

it could well be that someone (like me) looks at the license that’s right there
on the web site and then if your happy download and read the docs

kikabo · May 21, 2004, 8:20am

all sounds reasonable to me, thanks everyone who replied

TomT64 · May 21, 2004, 8:50am

Michael Rickert wrote:

— Tom Spilman wrote:

The LGPL allows for “dynamic” linking against the
library while you keep
your source code closed. This means use SDL from a
DLL ( or the equivalent
on other platforms ) and your all good.

Tom

Not just dynamic either. Pretty much the rules are:

If you’re modifying the library itself, all
modifications must be open source.

For programs using the library, it must be possible
to insert a different version of the library. This can
be done via:

Making the program source

Dynamically linking the library

Staticly linking the library, but providing all the
object files necessary to recompile the program with a
different version of that library.

IANAL, but these are good rules of thumb (I’ve heard)
for the LGPL.

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Domains ? Claim yours for only $14.70/year
http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer

SDL mailing list
SDL at libsdl.org
http://www.libsdl.org/mailman/listinfo/sdl

This is good to know. I had no idea that this level of detail could be
read into the license. Even though I didn’t ask, thank you for this
contribution.

Why is it every 6 months someone has to start asking silly questions about
the license?

Some people just don’t understand legalese! 8>)

-TomT64

Matt_Wilson · May 21, 2004, 8:57am

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Bill Kendrick wrote:
| Why is it every 6 months someone has to start asking silly questions about
| the license?

To be fair, the license page of libsdl.org isn’t very clear if you only
give it a quick glance;

----- 8< -----
You must also do one of the following:

~ 1. Include the source code for the version of SDL that you link with,
~ as well as the full source or object code to your application so
~ that the user can relink your application,
or
~ 2. Include a written offer, valid for at least three years, to
~ provide the materials listed in option 1, charging no more than
~ the cost of providing this distribution,
or
~ 3. Make the materials listed in option 1 available from the same
~ place that your application is available.

----- 8< -----

Which I assume is what the OP was referring to. Admittedly though
thoroughly reading the rest of the page does help clear things up a
little, though the seed of doubt has already nested by then Of
course, people should read the LGPL license through before they decide
to use any software licensed under it (similarly for any software
license), but people don’t.

Matt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFArcR7ms1059AAPcwRAgASAKDSYnCeuv5kqTJZ07FOthEB20NcrgCeOVrZ
Zk3GnfNnZwCc+zaz0zt5qNM=
=pO7a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Bob_Pendleton · May 21, 2004, 5:09pm

The LGPL allows for “dynamic” linking against the library while you keep
your source code closed. This means use SDL from a DLL ( or the equivalent
on other platforms ) and your all good.

Heh, isn’t this right there in the FAQ? (And, if one reads the LGPL license
itself, right there in the license, too!!?)

Why is it every 6 months someone has to start asking silly questions about
the license?

Hi Bill!

The answer is that programmers don’t seem to understand law.

		Bob PendletonOn Fri, 2004-05-21 at 03:08, Bill Kendrick wrote:

On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 02:56:52AM -0500, Tom Spilman wrote:

-bill!

SDL mailing list
SDL at libsdl.org
http://www.libsdl.org/mailman/listinfo/sdl
–
±-------------------------------------+

Bob Pendleton: writer and programmer +
email: Bob at Pendleton.com +
blog: www.Stonewolf.net +
web: www.GameProgrammer.com +
±-------------------------------------+

atrix2 · May 21, 2004, 6:06pm

Maybe that’s a telling sign that the laws arent logical? (;> ----- Original Message -----

From: bob@pendleton.com (Bob Pendleton)
To: "A list for developers using the SDL library. (includes SDL-announce)"

Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: [SDL] Am I reading the License right ?

On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 03:08, Bill Kendrick wrote:

On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 02:56:52AM -0500, Tom Spilman wrote:

The LGPL allows for “dynamic” linking against the library while you
keep

your source code closed. This means use SDL from a DLL ( or the
equivalent

on other platforms ) and your all good.

Heh, isn’t this right there in the FAQ? (And, if one reads the LGPL
license

itself, right there in the license, too!!?)

Why is it every 6 months someone has to start asking silly questions
about

the license?

Hi Bill!

The answer is that programmers don’t seem to understand law.

Bob Pendleton

-bill!

SDL mailing list
SDL at libsdl.org
http://www.libsdl.org/mailman/listinfo/sdl
–
±-------------------------------------+

Bob Pendleton: writer and programmer +

email: Bob at Pendleton.com +

blog: www.Stonewolf.net +

web: www.GameProgrammer.com +
±-------------------------------------+

SDL mailing list
SDL at libsdl.org
http://www.libsdl.org/mailman/listinfo/sdl

Bob_Pendleton · May 24, 2004, 5:23pm

Maybe that’s a telling sign that the laws arent logical? (;

I wish…

In my limited study of the law I have found that once you understand the
historical, and sometimes biological, basis of the law it is always
logical. Sadly, very very few programmers bother to learn anything about
real logic. They study only the absolutist logic of the mathematician
and the machine, never the real logic of interacting intelligent agents
with differing needs and desires facing real world problems.

Mathematical logic is simply to small, to stifled, to take on the
problems the law deals with every day.

Believe me, lawyers laugh at us as much, if not more, than we laugh at
them.

	Bob Pendleton

P.S.

If you want to continue this discussion either do it via private email
or take it over to gameprogrammer.com.On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 13:06, Alan Wolfe wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: “Bob Pendleton” <@Bob_Pendleton>
To: "A list for developers using the SDL library. (includes SDL-announce)"

Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: [SDL] Am I reading the License right ?

On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 03:08, Bill Kendrick wrote:

On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 02:56:52AM -0500, Tom Spilman wrote:

The LGPL allows for “dynamic” linking against the library while you
keep

your source code closed. This means use SDL from a DLL ( or the
equivalent

on other platforms ) and your all good.

Heh, isn’t this right there in the FAQ? (And, if one reads the LGPL
license

itself, right there in the license, too!!?)

Why is it every 6 months someone has to start asking silly questions
about

the license?

Hi Bill!

The answer is that programmers don’t seem to understand law.

Bob Pendleton

-bill!

SDL mailing list
SDL at libsdl.org
http://www.libsdl.org/mailman/listinfo/sdl
–
±-------------------------------------+

Bob Pendleton: writer and programmer +

email: Bob at Pendleton.com +

blog: www.Stonewolf.net +

web: www.GameProgrammer.com +
±-------------------------------------+

SDL mailing list
SDL at libsdl.org
http://www.libsdl.org/mailman/listinfo/sdl

SDL mailing list
SDL at libsdl.org
http://www.libsdl.org/mailman/listinfo/sdl
–
±-------------------------------------+

Bob Pendleton: writer and programmer +
email: Bob at Pendleton.com +
blog: www.Stonewolf.net +
web: www.GameProgrammer.com +
±-------------------------------------+