Commercial License for iPhone

I’m interested in purchasing a commercial license for SDL so I can release some games I’ve made using SDL 1.3 on the iPhone. I’ve tried emailing Galaxygameworks with no success. Anyone know how I can go about getting a commercial license and what the prices are for it?

Stan

Hi,

this might be a stupid question, but have you also tried reaching Sam
directly?–
Paulo

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Elenium wrote:

I’m interested in purchasing a commercial license for SDL so I can release
some games I’ve made using SDL 1.3 on the iPhone. I’ve tried emailing
Galaxygameworks with no success. Anyone know how I can go about getting a
commercial license and what the prices are for it?

Stan


SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

Contact: sales at galaxygameworks.com

This is a company Sam started and currently only sells commercial SDL
licenses.On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 23:05 -0700, Elenium wrote:

I’m interested in purchasing a commercial license for SDL so I can release some games I’ve made using SDL 1.3 on the iPhone. I’ve tried emailing Galaxygameworks with no success. Anyone know how I can go about getting a commercial license and what the prices are for it?

Stan


SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

Contact: sales at galaxygameworks.com

He did say that he emailed Galaxy Gameworks with no success. A quick
look gives nothing else (no phone or anything). I suppose one could
start digging in whois records, but that’s starting to be a bit much.
:-)On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Joe Tennies wrote:


http://pphaneuf.livejournal.com/

start digging in whois records, but that’s starting to be a bit much.
:slight_smile:

While we do all indeed stalk Sam, that doesn’t mean you have to give away
stalking secrets :)On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Pierre Phaneuf wrote:

It’s interesting that you can sell a commercial product by just dynamically
linking to the SDL (i am not a lawyer) but looks like the iPhone and iTouch
is different. Wonder if it’s less about SDL but bindings to the
iTouch/iPhone dev kits that make it not 100% free.

-JoshOn Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Elenium wrote:

I’m interested in purchasing a commercial license for SDL so I can release
some games I’ve made using SDL 1.3 on the iPhone. I’ve tried emailing
Galaxygameworks with no success. Anyone know how I can go about getting a
commercial license and what the prices are for it?

Stan


SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

It’s interesting that you can sell a commercial product by just dynamically
linking to the SDL (i am not a lawyer) but looks like the iPhone and iTouch
is different. Wonder if it’s less about SDL but bindings to the
iTouch/iPhone dev kits that make it not 100% free.

Apple iPhone dev kit says no third party library linkaging stuffies (and
similar). As such, you have to statically build SDL into your app. This
would mean you have to be LGPL happy (which defeats most commercial app
business models). As such, you need a non-LGPL commercial license for SDL.
Hence Galaxy shell company setup to provide non-LGPL licensed SDL libs for
static compilation.

-WillOn Thu, May 7, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Joshua Shriver wrote:

It’s interesting that you can sell a commercial product by just dynamically
linking to the SDL (i am not a lawyer) but looks like the iPhone and iTouch
is different. Wonder if it’s less about SDL but bindings to the
iTouch/iPhone dev kits that make it not 100% free.

I think it might be legally possible to ship a commercial iPhone
application that uses SDL, but it would be incredibly annoying. Apple
has a bunch of requirements for things that go into the App Store, and
I think being statically linked is one of them. You could provide
access to a dynamically linked version that someone with the iPhone
SDK would then be able to use to put on his phone with a modified SDL,
but you’d have to track who bought it, somehow, so that people can’t
just randomly get your app for free, and all sorts of other hassles
like that.

At the end of the say, giving Sam money is the easiest thing to do,
and possibly the cheapest once you consider the time spent doing this
correctly. ;-)On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Joshua Shriver wrote:


http://pphaneuf.livejournal.com/

Elenium <eleniums yahoo.com> writes:

I’m interested in purchasing a commercial license for SDL so I can release
some games I’ve made using SDL 1.3
on the iPhone. I’ve tried emailing Galaxygameworks with no success. Anyone
know how I can go about getting
a commercial license and what the prices are for it?

Stan

Hey guys,

Thanks for the replies. I actually finally got my reply from Sam himself so I’m
on track for a commercial license. What’s been said previously is correct,
Apple doesn’t allow you to dynamically link libraries and so a commercial
license is needed (unless you go open source but I’m not willing to do that
with a commercial product :slight_smile: ).

Stan

Contact: sales at galaxygameworks.com

He did say that he emailed Galaxy Gameworks with no success.

I already responded via private e-mail, his mail just got lost in my voluminous inbox. :slight_smile:

See ya!
-Sam Lantinga, Founder and President, Galaxy Gameworks LLC> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Joe Tennies wrote:

hi,

there are two other options for using SDL on the iphone app store… other
than paying for a comercial licence (IANAL).

The LGPL clearly states that you can either provide object code( section
4,d,0) or use a dll ( section 4,d,1) - so the user can re-link.

see section 4, d, 0.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html

So the other alternative is to provide object code, so the user can re-link.

For some people this might be ok to distribute their closed source apps on
the iphone store - without needing a different licence.

Another option is to (L)GPL your application source code, and keep the data
non-GPL’d.

cu,On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 4:15 AM, Pierre Phaneuf wrote:

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Joshua Shriver wrote:

It’s interesting that you can sell a commercial product by just
dynamically
linking to the SDL (i am not a lawyer) but looks like the iPhone and
iTouch
is different. Wonder if it’s less about SDL but bindings to the
iTouch/iPhone dev kits that make it not 100% free.

I think it might be legally possible to ship a commercial iPhone
application that uses SDL, but it would be incredibly annoying. Apple
has a bunch of requirements for things that go into the App Store, and
I think being statically linked is one of them. You could provide
access to a dynamically linked version that someone with the iPhone
SDK would then be able to use to put on his phone with a modified SDL,
but you’d have to track who bought it, somehow, so that people can’t
just randomly get your app for free, and all sorts of other hassles
like that.

At the end of the say, giving Sam money is the easiest thing to do,
and possibly the cheapest once you consider the time spent doing this
correctly. :wink:


http://pphaneuf.livejournal.com/


SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

Hi,

this has already been largely discussed on this list.

Apple forbids dlls for 3rd party applications. Only Apple applications are
allowed to use dlls (or .so if you prefer).–
Paulo

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Ren? Dudfield wrote:

hi,

there are two other options for using SDL on the iphone app store… other
than paying for a comercial licence (IANAL).

The LGPL clearly states that you can either provide object code( section
4,d,0) or use a dll ( section 4,d,1) - so the user can re-link.

see section 4, d, 0.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html

So the other alternative is to provide object code, so the user can
re-link.

For some people this might be ok to distribute their closed source apps on
the iphone store - without needing a different licence.

Another option is to (L)GPL your application source code, and keep the data
non-GPL’d.

cu,

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 4:15 AM, Pierre Phaneuf wrote:

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Joshua Shriver wrote:

It’s interesting that you can sell a commercial product by just
dynamically
linking to the SDL (i am not a lawyer) but looks like the iPhone and
iTouch
is different. Wonder if it’s less about SDL but bindings to the
iTouch/iPhone dev kits that make it not 100% free.

I think it might be legally possible to ship a commercial iPhone
application that uses SDL, but it would be incredibly annoying. Apple
has a bunch of requirements for things that go into the App Store, and
I think being statically linked is one of them. You could provide
access to a dynamically linked version that someone with the iPhone
SDK would then be able to use to put on his phone with a modified SDL,
but you’d have to track who bought it, somehow, so that people can’t
just randomly get your app for free, and all sorts of other hassles
like that.

At the end of the say, giving Sam money is the easiest thing to do,
and possibly the cheapest once you consider the time spent doing this
correctly. :wink:


http://pphaneuf.livejournal.com/


SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org


SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

Hello,

I was talking about the object code (.o files with gcc) and open source code
options. Was just mentioning the .dll/.so since it is just one of the
options that the LGPL allows.

cu,On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Paulo Pinto wrote:

Hi,

this has already been largely discussed on this list.

Apple forbids dlls for 3rd party applications. Only Apple applications are
allowed to use dlls (or .so if you prefer).


Paulo

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Ren? Dudfield <@Rene_Dudfield> wrote:

hi,

there are two other options for using SDL on the iphone app store… other
than paying for a comercial licence (IANAL).

The LGPL clearly states that you can either provide object code( section
4,d,0) or use a dll ( section 4,d,1) - so the user can re-link.

see section 4, d, 0.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html

So the other alternative is to provide object code, so the user can
re-link.

For some people this might be ok to distribute their closed source apps on
the iphone store - without needing a different licence.

Another option is to (L)GPL your application source code, and keep the
data non-GPL’d.

cu,

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 4:15 AM, Pierre Phaneuf wrote:

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Joshua Shriver wrote:

It’s interesting that you can sell a commercial product by just
dynamically
linking to the SDL (i am not a lawyer) but looks like the iPhone and
iTouch
is different. Wonder if it’s less about SDL but bindings to the
iTouch/iPhone dev kits that make it not 100% free.

I think it might be legally possible to ship a commercial iPhone
application that uses SDL, but it would be incredibly annoying. Apple
has a bunch of requirements for things that go into the App Store, and
I think being statically linked is one of them. You could provide
access to a dynamically linked version that someone with the iPhone
SDK would then be able to use to put on his phone with a modified SDL,
but you’d have to track who bought it, somehow, so that people can’t
just randomly get your app for free, and all sorts of other hassles
like that.

At the end of the say, giving Sam money is the easiest thing to do,
and possibly the cheapest once you consider the time spent doing this
correctly. :wink:


http://pphaneuf.livejournal.com/


SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org


SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org


SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

Sure, but LGPL is not possible for iPhone applications, because of the Apple
SDK’s license.

That is what I was trying to explain.

Cheers,
PauloOn Sun, May 10, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Ren? Dudfield wrote:

Hello,

I was talking about the object code (.o files with gcc) and open source
code options. Was just mentioning the .dll/.so since it is just one of the
options that the LGPL allows.

cu,

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Paulo Pinto <@Paulo_Pinto> wrote:

Hi,

this has already been largely discussed on this list.

Apple forbids dlls for 3rd party applications. Only Apple applications are
allowed to use dlls (or .so if you prefer).


Paulo

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Ren? Dudfield wrote:

hi,

there are two other options for using SDL on the iphone app store…
other than paying for a comercial licence (IANAL).

The LGPL clearly states that you can either provide object code( section
4,d,0) or use a dll ( section 4,d,1) - so the user can re-link.

see section 4, d, 0.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html

So the other alternative is to provide object code, so the user can
re-link.

For some people this might be ok to distribute their closed source apps
on the iphone store - without needing a different licence.

Another option is to (L)GPL your application source code, and keep the
data non-GPL’d.

cu,

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 4:15 AM, Pierre Phaneuf wrote:

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Joshua Shriver wrote:

It’s interesting that you can sell a commercial product by just
dynamically
linking to the SDL (i am not a lawyer) but looks like the iPhone and
iTouch
is different. Wonder if it’s less about SDL but bindings to the
iTouch/iPhone dev kits that make it not 100% free.

I think it might be legally possible to ship a commercial iPhone
application that uses SDL, but it would be incredibly annoying. Apple
has a bunch of requirements for things that go into the App Store, and
I think being statically linked is one of them. You could provide
access to a dynamically linked version that someone with the iPhone
SDK would then be able to use to put on his phone with a modified SDL,
but you’d have to track who bought it, somehow, so that people can’t
just randomly get your app for free, and all sorts of other hassles
like that.

At the end of the say, giving Sam money is the easiest thing to do,
and possibly the cheapest once you consider the time spent doing this
correctly. :wink:


http://pphaneuf.livejournal.com/


SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org


SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org


SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org


SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

The apple sdk licence doesn’t prevent distribution of source code, or object
code.

The LGPL does not require you to use shared linking, if you distribute your
object code or your source code ( and you follow the rest of it ).

cu,On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Paulo Pinto wrote:

Sure, but LGPL is not possible for iPhone applications, because of the
Apple SDK’s license.

That is what I was trying to explain.

Cheers,
Paulo

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Ren? Dudfield <@Rene_Dudfield> wrote:

Hello,

I was talking about the object code (.o files with gcc) and open source
code options. Was just mentioning the .dll/.so since it is just one of the
options that the LGPL allows.

cu,

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Paulo Pinto wrote:

Hi,

this has already been largely discussed on this list.

Apple forbids dlls for 3rd party applications. Only Apple applications
are allowed to use dlls (or .so if you prefer).


Paulo

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Ren? Dudfield <@Rene_Dudfield>wrote:

hi,

there are two other options for using SDL on the iphone app store…
other than paying for a comercial licence (IANAL).

The LGPL clearly states that you can either provide object code( section
4,d,0) or use a dll ( section 4,d,1) - so the user can re-link.

see section 4, d, 0.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html

So the other alternative is to provide object code, so the user can
re-link.

For some people this might be ok to distribute their closed source apps
on the iphone store - without needing a different licence.

Another option is to (L)GPL your application source code, and keep the
data non-GPL’d.

cu,

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 4:15 AM, Pierre Phaneuf wrote:

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Joshua Shriver wrote:

It’s interesting that you can sell a commercial product by just
dynamically
linking to the SDL (i am not a lawyer) but looks like the iPhone and
iTouch
is different. Wonder if it’s less about SDL but bindings to the
iTouch/iPhone dev kits that make it not 100% free.

I think it might be legally possible to ship a commercial iPhone
application that uses SDL, but it would be incredibly annoying. Apple
has a bunch of requirements for things that go into the App Store, and
I think being statically linked is one of them. You could provide
access to a dynamically linked version that someone with the iPhone
SDK would then be able to use to put on his phone with a modified SDL,
but you’d have to track who bought it, somehow, so that people can’t
just randomly get your app for free, and all sorts of other hassles
like that.

At the end of the say, giving Sam money is the easiest thing to do,
and possibly the cheapest once you consider the time spent doing this
correctly. :wink:


http://pphaneuf.livejournal.com/


SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org


SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org


SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org


SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org


SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

The apple sdk licence doesn’t prevent distribution of source code, or object
code.

The LGPL does not require you to use shared linking, if you distribute your
object code or your source code ( and you follow the rest of it ).

I’m pretty sure you’re correct, the part that makes this annoying (for
a closed source software developer) is that usually, one wants to
restrict the availability of the software (to those who paid for it,
say!), and this would require a fair amount of work, to both comply
with the LGPL and with one’s desire not to hand out the object files
to any random person… To the point where it’s probably just better
to give up and get a license from Galaxy Gameworks.On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Ren? Dudfield wrote:


http://pphaneuf.livejournal.com/

The apple sdk licence doesn’t prevent distribution of source code, or
object
code.

The LGPL does not require you to use shared linking, if you distribute
your
object code or your source code ( and you follow the rest of it ).

I’m pretty sure you’re correct, the part that makes this annoying (for
a closed source software developer) is that usually, one wants to
restrict the availability of the software (to those who paid for it,
say!), and this would require a fair amount of work, to both comply
with the LGPL and with one’s desire not to hand out the object files
to any random person… To the point where it’s probably just better
to give up and get a license from Galaxy Gameworks.

yeah, mostly agreed…

Except, to comply with the LGPL you don’t need to hand out the files to
random people… just people you distribute your game to.

Also, it’s nice to support things you depend on (in this case Sam and SDL).

So it’s still a decision people can make… but not likely the best decision
for many people.

cu,On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Pierre Phaneuf wrote:

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Ren? Dudfield <@Rene_Dudfield> wrote:

yeah, mostly agreed…

Except, to comply with the LGPL you don’t need to hand out the files to
random people… just people you distribute your game to.

Yeah, that’s what I mean, but tracking who you sold your game to on
the App Store, then providing them with a secure way to get the
files… I’m not even sure it’s possible? Meh. I think I’m just going
to go with BSD licensing, less headaches. ;-)On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Ren? Dudfield wrote:


http://pphaneuf.livejournal.com/

Can you charge money for the object files? That would fix the problem.

Jonny DOn 5/11/09, Pierre Phaneuf wrote:

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Ren? Dudfield wrote:

yeah, mostly agreed…

Except, to comply with the LGPL you don’t need to hand out the files to
random people… just people you distribute your game to.

Yeah, that’s what I mean, but tracking who you sold your game to on
the App Store, then providing them with a secure way to get the
files… I’m not even sure it’s possible? Meh. I think I’m just going
to go with BSD licensing, less headaches. :wink:


http://pphaneuf.livejournal.com/


SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

Speaking outside the context of the (L)GPL license, you can charge money for
anything people
are willing to buy. Even “nothing”, as a few years ago in EBay. :slight_smile:

Sorry about the comment, but I had to answer.–
Paulo

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Jonathan Dearborn wrote:

Can you charge money for the object files? That would fix the problem.

Jonny D

On 5/11/09, Pierre Phaneuf wrote:

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Ren? Dudfield wrote:

yeah, mostly agreed…

Except, to comply with the LGPL you don’t need to hand out the files to
random people… just people you distribute your game to.

Yeah, that’s what I mean, but tracking who you sold your game to on
the App Store, then providing them with a secure way to get the
files… I’m not even sure it’s possible? Meh. I think I’m just going
to go with BSD licensing, less headaches. :wink:


http://pphaneuf.livejournal.com/


SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org


SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org