The prerelease source code to SDL 1.0.2 is available at:
http://www.devolution.com/~slouken/SDL/cvs.html
This is the final snapshot before I release SDL 1.0.2.
The only thing missing is CD-ROM code for MacOS which no longer compiles.
When that is in, I’ll be announcing the new code.
Prerelease binaries can be found at:
http://www.devolution.com/~slouken/SDL/release/
See ya!
-Sam Lantinga (slouken at devolution.com)
Lead Programmer, Loki Entertainment Software–
“Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature”
– Rich Kulawiec
Sam Lantinga wrote …
The prerelease source code to SDL 1.0.2 is available at:
http://www.devolution.com/~slouken/SDL/cvs.html
Compiles clean with VC++ 6.0 and works great on Win98 
Regimental Command
Generic Armored Combat System
http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~relander/regcom/index.html
With the rapid changes to the SDL-*-libraries, will there be
dynamically linked versions of the Loki-ported games? I noticed that the
Civ:CTP 1.2 patch includes a (unsupported 
) dynamic patch, and this would
sure be a welcome addition for the other ones in my collection (lesse… Civ,
Myth, Railroad Tycoon and, as of 3:45 hours ago, M&M III )
Just Curious,
HakanOn Wed, 19 Jan 2000, you wrote:
The prerelease source code to SDL 1.0.2 is available at:
http://www.devolution.com/~slouken/SDL/cvs.html
–
Hakan Tandogan hakan at iconsult.com
Hakan Tandogan wrote:
The prerelease source code to SDL 1.0.2 is available at:
http://www.devolution.com/~slouken/SDL/cvs.html
With the rapid changes to the SDL-*-libraries, will there be
dynamically linked versions of the Loki-ported games? I noticed that the
Civ:CTP 1.2 patch includes a (unsupported ) dynamic patch, and this
would sure be a welcome addition for the other ones in my collection
(lesse… Civ, Myth, Railroad Tycoon and, as of 3:45 hours ago,
M&M III )
And as would be required by the LGPL licensing of SDL.
Sam, note that while you can release your code twice, one under the LGPL
and one with a specific license for Loki, as you are the copyright
owner, this is not the case for the LGPL patches you get from the net.
Their copyright owner is their author, and as they are under the LGPL,
releasing a game using a patched SDL with only static binaries available
wouldn’t be okay.
An unsupported dynamically linked binary satisfies the LGPL requirements
just fine, I would have expected Loki to do this for all their SDL-using
(or actually “LGPL-code”-using) products.–
Pierre Phaneuf
Ludus Design, http://ludusdesign.com/
Sam, note that while you can release your code twice, one under the LGPL
and one with a specific license for Loki, as you are the copyright
owner, this is not the case for the LGPL patches you get from the net.
where were you when I brought this up about a month ago?
Their copyright owner is their author, and as they are under the LGPL,
releasing a game using a patched SDL with only static binaries available
wouldn’t be okay.
2 solutions to this: 1) authors who donate give up their rights to the
code., or 2) authors that contribute do so under both licenses to
Sam as well.
It’s easy, Just remove any contributions from authors that do not agree to
these terms.
From a previous message to this list, I believe Sam intents to provide the
same license to the community as well, still waiting for an official
announcment on that though.–
Brian
2 solutions to this: 1) authors who donate give up their rights to the
code., or 2) authors that contribute do so under both licenses to
Sam as well.
Oh yea, the obvious answer is 3) Just provide dynamic versions of the
games.
But the problem is, the LGPL specifically says you cant restrict reverse
engineering of a statically linked “work that uses a LGPL library”.
I bet the software Loki is porting specifically excludes reverse
engineering. Which means it can not be statically linked under the LGPL.
Based on the wording in the LGPL itself (which I’ve read at least 3
times), I’m not exactly sure if this reverse engineering also
pertains to dynamically linking as well(it could be read that way, in my
opinion). If so, it means that a commercial app that prevents reverse
engineering can’t even be dynamically linked with an LGPL library.–
Brian
hayward at slothmud.org wrote:
Oh yea, the obvious answer is 3) Just provide dynamic versions of the
games.
But the problem is, the LGPL specifically says you cant restrict reverse
engineering of a statically linked “work that uses a LGPL library”.
I bet the software Loki is porting specifically excludes reverse
engineering. Which means it can not be statically linked under the LGPL.
If you are talking about paragraph 6, it is talking about the LGPL’d
code, not the whole thing.
Based on the wording in the LGPL itself (which I’ve read at least 3
times), I’m not exactly sure if this reverse engineering also
pertains to dynamically linking as well(it could be read that way, in my
opinion). If so, it means that a commercial app that prevents reverse
engineering can’t even be dynamically linked with an LGPL library.
The LGPL was specifically drafted so that closed-source applications
could link with LGPL’d code without making their proprietary code
exposed.–
Pierre Phaneuf
Ludus Design, http://ludusdesign.com/