Dynamically loading SDL dlls

SDL Development
21

Why is there a license anyway? It’s not like anyone would bootleg SDL or
make their own renamed version… :confused:

Because the copyright owners own the copyright to SDL. Licensing it
under the LGPL ensures they get what they want back from the project,
while making it free for others to use (as in Free Software, capital F).

GPL and LGPL software is sometimes ‘bootlegged’, as you call it,
and people have been taken to court over this illegal use of copyrighted
software. For example, this week’s piece of news may be of interest:

“Settlement reached in Busybox-Monsoon GPL case”
http://www.linux.com/feature/120629

I just hope the new commercial license of SDL 1.3 will allow static linking
and be reasonably priced… or free? Is there any info on this license yet?

chaz

----- Original Message -----
From: nbs@sonic.net (Bill Kendrick)
To: “A list for developers using the SDL library. (includes SDL-announce)”
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 8:49 AM
Subject: Re: [SDL] Dynamically loading SDL dlls
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 08:53:49AM -0400, L-28C wrote:

22

Hello !

I just hope the new commercial license of SDL 1.3 will allow static linking
and be reasonably priced… or free? Is there any info on this license yet?

The Nr. One reason for the commercial license is to allow
static linking i think. There was never a word about pricing.

Sam ?

CU

23

Is your project open source? You don’t need to provide object files if
it’s open in the first place.

(I’m kinda surprised nobody mentioned that.)On 11/1/07, Jeremy wrote:

I mentioned that earlier. I’m not going to play the object file game either.
It’s easier to find a library that fits my needs better than maintain a
couple hundred meg zip of object files(and libraries?) from a large project
in the zero chance someone will want to re-link SDL. It’s wasted effort. SDL
is great, just not for my needs in this particular case. On the other hand
I’m growing to really like what SFML has to offer as part of this
experimentation with alternatives.

J

On 11/1/07, Bill Kendrick wrote:

On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 04:50:22PM -0700, Jeremy wrote:

Yea I tried for a while last night to do the converting of SDL to a true
dynamic library but it’s a nightmare so I gave up. I don’t need SDL that
badly to jump through those sort of hoops with a middle man dll. I’ve
begun
converting my SDL usage to SFML, which I now prefer over SDL for my
situation, mainly due to static linkage and being in C++, and its
simplicity
got me up and running very quickly.

OOC, why didn’t you statically link against SDL?
(You could adhere to the LGPL by providing objects against which SDL could
be re-statically-linked.)

So confused… but also barely paying attention :slight_smile:

-bill!

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

–

  • SR