I’m sorry I started this discussion, its going no where.
Bottom line if you need to use sdl you have two avenues to go, agree or not.
GPL or commerical license
(yes I know every single source page says gpl but…)
I don’ t like some of the details of the license either, but I know I want to go gpl. I enjoy helping people explore.
I spent a good 15 minutes this morning going thru support questions for my open source projects.
I’m sorry I started this discussion, its going no where.
Bottom line if you need to use sdl you have two avenues to go, agree
or not.GPL or commerical license
That is not strictly true, The GPL requires that you allow and provide a
means for someone to replace the GPL portion of the product (usually
this means dynamic linking).
I have worked at places where they give away the object files for a
static program and just let the end user do the linker phase.
It is perfectly possible to release SDL code on iphoneos containing GPL
if you are willing to either release your sources, release your objects
and part of the build and/or release with the commercial SDL license.
The $100 license is a no-brainer for me, as I’m going to have to stump
up $100 for the apple developer account anyway.
From what I have used of SDL 1.3 on iPhone so far it has done everything
I’ve needed and done it well ( Actually I’m only really using the events
code directly, the rest is opengl ).
Best Regards
Ian
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed…
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: http://lists.libsdl.org/pipermail/sdl-libsdl.org/attachments/20100217/f9a8bdcb/attachment.pgpOn Wed, 2010-02-17 at 05:49 -0800, michelleC wrote:
Hi,Am 17.02.2010 15:01, schrieb Ian Norton:
I have worked at places where they give away the object files for a
static program and just let the end user do the linker phase.
This does really work (technically)? Sounds like a somewhat grey legal
area.
–
Christoph Nelles
E-Mail : @Christoph_Nelles
Jabber : eazrael at evilazrael.net ICQ : 78819723
PGP-Key : ID 0x424FB55B on subkeys.pgp.net
or http://evilazrael.net/pgp.txt
if your using something like ffmpeg which is also open source you have to do most of the following anyway.
It is perfectly possible to release SDL code on iphoneos containing GPL
if you are willing to either release your sources, release your objects
and part of the build and/or release with the commercial SDL license.
Ian Norton wrote:> On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 05:49 -0800, michelleC wrote:
I’m sorry I started this discussion, its going no where.
Bottom line if you need to use sdl you have two avenues to go, agree
or not.GPL or commerical license
That is not strictly true, The GPL requires that you allow and provide a
means for someone to replace the GPL portion of the product (usually
this means dynamic linking).I have worked at places where they give away the object files for a
static program and just let the end user do the linker phase.It is perfectly possible to release SDL code on iphoneos containing GPL
if you are willing to either release your sources, release your objects
and part of the build and/or release with the commercial SDL license.The $100 license is a no-brainer for me, as I’m going to have to stump
up $100 for the apple developer account anyway.From what I have used of SDL 1.3 on iPhone so far it has done everything
I’ve needed and done it well ( Actually I’m only really using the events
code directly, the rest is opengl ).Best Regards
Ian
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
The disclaimer on the sdl 1.3 svn even states it is not complete, so I don’t think that is debateable.
Some parts of sdl are more complete than others.
SDL_AUDIO is a really nice wrapper around core audio for instance.
The event loop seems to work just fine, though it could be refined.
Integrating sdl into your existing iphone app structure is not as easy as it should be.
With open gl you just create an eaglview that is a subclass uder the uiwindow in the view controller and your good to go.
SDL takes a littlle more work to make that work, unless you are creating a game that relies entirely on sdl and open GL and does not use other iphone sdk components. That maybe accounts for 40% of the games today.
I’ve heard couintless developers comment that opengl will give you better performance than SDL. This is true to respect, except a lot code exists for sdl that is highly optimized. ffmpeg for instance.
Ian Norton wrote:> On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 05:49 -0800, michelleC wrote:
I’m sorry I started this discussion, its going no where.
Bottom line if you need to use sdl you have two avenues to go, agree
or not.GPL or commerical license
That is not strictly true, The GPL requires that you allow and provide a
means for someone to replace the GPL portion of the product (usually
this means dynamic linking).I have worked at places where they give away the object files for a
static program and just let the end user do the linker phase.It is perfectly possible to release SDL code on iphoneos containing GPL
if you are willing to either release your sources, release your objects
and part of the build and/or release with the commercial SDL license.The $100 license is a no-brainer for me, as I’m going to have to stump
up $100 for the apple developer account anyway.From what I have used of SDL 1.3 on iPhone so far it has done everything
I’ve needed and done it well ( Actually I’m only really using the events
code directly, the rest is opengl ).Best Regards
Ian
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
Here’s my thinking on this very large heap of garbage. If the LGPL were
to be modified in such a way so as to basically state, “Any proprietary
software must link against the library dynamically, OR, provide other
means of notifying the end user of the use of the library (i.e. in the
credits, or at the beginning showing the SDL Powered logo).” This would
certainly solve many problems, and is in fact not that difficult to
implement, or adhere to, and SDL would still retain its free and open
source license without caring what Apple is telling people to do.On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 06:23 -0800, michelleC wrote:
The disclaimer on the sdl 1.3 svn even states it is not complete, so I
don’t think that is debateable.Some parts of sdl are more complete than others.
SDL_AUDIO is a really nice wrapper around core audio for instance.
The event loop seems to work just fine, though it could be refined.Integrating sdl into your existing iphone app structure is not as easy
as it should be.With open gl you just create an eaglview that is a subclass uder the
uiwindow in the view controller and your good to go.
SDL takes a littlle more work to make that work, unless you are
creating a game that relies entirely on sdl and open GL and does not
use other iphone sdk components. That maybe accounts for 40% of the
games today.I’ve heard couintless developers comment that opengl will give you
better performance than SDL. This is true to respect, except a lot
code exists for sdl that is highly optimized. ffmpeg for instance.
Ian Norton wrote: On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 05:49 -0800, michelleC wrote: Quote: I'm sorry I started this discussion, its going no where.Bottom line if you need to use sdl you have two avenues to go, agree
or not.GPL or commerical licenseThat is not strictly true, The GPL requires that you allow and provide
a
means for someone to replace the GPL portion of the product (usually
this means dynamic linking).I have worked at places where they give away the object files for a
static program and just let the end user do the linker phase.It is perfectly possible to release SDL code on iphoneos containing
GPL
if you are willing to either release your sources, release your
objects
and part of the build and/or release with the commercial SDL license.The $100 license is a no-brainer for me, as I’m going to have to stump
up $100 for the apple developer account anyway.>From what I have used of SDL 1.3 on iPhone so far it has done everythingI’ve needed and done it well ( Actually I’m only really using the
events
code directly, the rest is opengl ).Best Regards Ian _______________________________________________ SDL mailing list 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 is not an library for iPhone development, it is for doing multiplaform
development.
If you really want to take advantage of iPhone specific features than use
SDK directly.On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 3:23 PM, michelleC wrote:
The disclaimer on the sdl 1.3 svn even states it is not complete, so I
don’t think that is debateable.Some parts of sdl are more complete than others.
SDL_AUDIO is a really nice wrapper around core audio for instance.
The event loop seems to work just fine, though it could be refined.Integrating sdl into your existing iphone app structure is not as easy as
it should be.With open gl you just create an eaglview that is a subclass uder the
uiwindow in the view controller and your good to go.
SDL takes a littlle more work to make that work, unless you are creating a
game that relies entirely on sdl and open GL and does not use other iphone
sdk components. That maybe accounts for 40% of the games today.I’ve heard couintless developers comment that opengl will give you better
performance than SDL. This is true to respect, except a lot code exists for
sdl that is highly optimized. ffmpeg for instance.Ian Norton wrote:
On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 05:49 -0800, michelleC wrote:
Quote:
I’m sorry I started this discussion, its going no where.
Bottom line if you need to use sdl you have two avenues to go, agree
or not.GPL or commerical license
That is not strictly true, The GPL requires that you allow and provide a
means for someone to replace the GPL portion of the product (usually
this means dynamic linking).I have worked at places where they give away the object files for a
static program and just let the end user do the linker phase.It is perfectly possible to release SDL code on iphoneos containing GPL
if you are willing to either release your sources, release your objects
and part of the build and/or release with the commercial SDL license.The $100 license is a no-brainer for me, as I’m going to have to stump
up $100 for the apple developer account anyway.From what I have used of SDL 1.3 on iPhone so far it has done everything
I’ve needed and done it well ( Actually I’m only really using the events
code directly, the rest is opengl ).Best Regards
Ian
SDL mailing list
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
Problem is, that’s not what the LGPL is about. The point isn’t attribution, it’s allowing end-users to modify
the library and upgrade it independently of the program it’s linked to.>From: Justin Davis
Subject: Re: [SDL] “galaxy gameworks” charging for a commercial licen
Here’s my thinking on this very large heap of garbage. If the LGPL were to be modified
in such a way so as to basically state, "Any proprietary software must link against the
library dynamically, OR, provide other means of notifying the end user of the use of
the library (i.e. in the credits, or at the beginning showing the SDL Powered logo)."
This would certainly solve many problems, and is in fact not that difficult to implement,
or adhere to, and SDL would still retain its free and open source license without caring
what Apple is telling people to do.
Will Langford wrote:
LOL, spit up coffee on that one, thanks…
Hehe, sorry.
Let me describe my project as an example
I use sdl in only a small piece of my project, the project was started long before I heard of sdl.
The application listens for upnp media servers that are avertised over the networks
These servers are displayed in a tableview
Once the user selects a server from the list, the servers content (music, videos and pictures) are displayed in another tableview
ffmpeg is used to extract the first frame from a video and add it to the lazy list of content being built
selecting an iitem from the list navigates to a uiwebview with content from the DLNA spec . (running time, file name, resolution etc)
There is also a play button
Clicking the play button has two possible outlets
if the video is in an iphone compatable format mp4 , mpa it is played via the standard mpmedia player.
if the video is in a foriegn but playable format (xvid, avi divx) or a streamed mms or rtsp than a
selector in the didselectRowAt method runs the sdl based video player.
When the video is completed the sdl is existed and control returned to the app.
the user may select other videos, use other tabs to do functions such as post screencap to facebook or exit.
Anything that uses ffmpeg or SDL per license is provided as an xcode buildable project with all sources.
All natural objects are supplied.
ALL headers are supplied.
A smaller unrellated part of the code (what one developer I know calls the secret sauce) is included in a static library.
The source may be compiled in xcode, non developers can get the app via the appstore at a fee that per license just covers prep and
distrubution.
Tim Angus wrote:> Will Langford wrote:
LOL, spit up coffee on that one, thanks…
Hehe, sorry.
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
Hi,
It is perfectly possible to release SDL code on iphoneos containing GPL
if you are willing to either release your sources, release your objects
and part of the build and/or release with the commercial SDL license.
Slightly off-topic, but close - is it really possible to release a GPL
program for the iPhone and comply with Apple’s iPhone developer
agreement? I develop TuxMath, which is basically GPLv2+, and uses
SDL. If there was a statically-linked iPhone build of TuxMath, could
it make it into Apple’s App Store? My understanding was that the GPL
and the iPhone agreement were incompatible (now talking about the GPL,
not the LGPL).
David Bruce
p.s. - also, would it make any difference if TuxMath were GPLv3+? Due
to some inconsistencies within our project, a few files in TuxMath say
"GPL Version 3 or later", although the authors don’t feels strongly
about it and could equally go with v2+.
I don’t see anything in the agreement againt gpl, do you think apple wants a war on there hands to make a statement like that.
What you can’t do or shouldn’t is released compiled executables.
There is nothing preventing you from publishing all your source, your objects and build files.
equally gpl does allow you to charge a small nominal fee for your effort, which would fit nicely in with most of the appstore’s price range.
David Bruce wrote:> Hi,
It is perfectly possible to release SDL code on iphoneos containing GPL
if you are willing to either release your sources, release your objects
and part of the build and/or release with the commercial SDL license.Slightly off-topic, but close - is it really possible to release a GPL
program for the iPhone and comply with Apple’s iPhone developer
agreement? I develop TuxMath, which is basically GPLv2+, and uses
SDL. If there was a statically-linked iPhone build of TuxMath, could
it make it into Apple’s App Store? My understanding was that the GPL
and the iPhone agreement were incompatible (now talking about the GPL,
not the LGPL).David Bruce
p.s. - also, would it make any difference if TuxMath were GPLv3+? Due
to some inconsistencies within our project, a few files in TuxMath say
"GPL Version 3 or later", although the authors don’t feels strongly
about it and could equally go with v2+.
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
sorry, but as an American I equate GPL with the Patriot Act: giving
up freedoms you already have to get some sense of “protection”.
I don’t expect everyone to agree, but for the most part, yes, I
think people who give up freedom on the name of freedom are
idiots. but mostly, why the hell does someone care what the author
and copyright holder wants to do with their work? because someone
told them their (as in the person who cares what someone else is
doing with their own property) freedoms were at stake. those
are the idiots that really annoy me.On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 05:39:39AM -0800, Jeff Post wrote:
On Wednesday 17 February 2010 01:39, Jacob Meuser wrote:
I thought everyone knew that, but I guess there are still many idiots
out there who still think the GPL is about freedom.So, anyone with whom you don’t agree is an idiot. Thanks for letting us know,
we idiots would never have thought of that.Jeff
–
@Jacob_Meuser
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Slightly off-topic, but close - is it really possible to release a GPL
program for the iPhone and comply with Apple’s iPhone developer
agreement? I develop TuxMath, which is basically GPLv2+, and uses
SDL. If there was a statically-linked iPhone build of TuxMath, could
it make it into Apple’s App Store? My understanding was that the GPL
and the iPhone agreement were incompatible (now talking about the GPL,
not the LGPL).
You can have GPL apps in the app store no problem. ID’s wolfenstein and
doom are prime examples of GPL of a commercial iphone app.
And yes, some people have been blurring LGPL vs GPL throughout this
conversation, sadly :(.
The thing for getting things into the app store is no dynamic linking beyond
the apple provided libraries… so if you’re statically linked to an LGPL or
GPL library, but are also LGPL/GPL yourself, you are fine… as long as you
provide the source on a site or via mail somehow.
-Will
GPLv3 has additional restrictions aimed at preventing “DRM protected” (not user runnable if recompiled) programs, so that would indeed interfere I believe (but I am not a lawyer), mainly these
restrictions were aimed at stopping use of Linux software on TiVo without allowance for user-modification (the hardware won’t load an unsigned binary, and the vendor is the only one who can make the
signed binaries, hence the GPLv2 is being violated in spirit, and the GPLv3 aimed to correct this).
As for the GPLv2 I think there is no major problem, so long as the vendor does not have some prohibition on source release, and they would first have to take that up with John Carmack for iPhone Doom.
P.S. this issue is of personal interest to me as I do contract work that crosses the lines between open source and proprietary PS3 game development, and judging by the complete absence of PS3 support
code snippets on the web (save for some PS3 code in Bullet physics, some of which is clearly marked Sony confidential), I doubt Sony wants anyone releasing PS3 support code publically in an open
source engine, making this particularly sad is the fact they claimed they would be open sourcing PhyreEngine at some point, but it hasn’t happened (at this time it requires a separate agreement and is
only available to SDK licensees).On 02/17/2010 10:58 AM, David Bruce wrote:
Hi,
It is perfectly possible to release SDL code on iphoneos containing GPL
if you are willing to either release your sources, release your objects
and part of the build and/or release with the commercial SDL license.Slightly off-topic, but close - is it really possible to release a GPL
program for the iPhone and comply with Apple’s iPhone developer
agreement? I develop TuxMath, which is basically GPLv2+, and uses
SDL. If there was a statically-linked iPhone build of TuxMath, could
it make it into Apple’s App Store? My understanding was that the GPL
and the iPhone agreement were incompatible (now talking about the GPL,
not the LGPL).David Bruce
p.s. - also, would it make any difference if TuxMath were GPLv3+? Due
to some inconsistencies within our project, a few files in TuxMath say
"GPL Version 3 or later", although the authors don’t feels strongly
about it and could equally go with v2+.
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
–
LordHavoc
Author of DarkPlaces Quake1 engine - http://icculus.org/twilight/darkplaces
Co-designer of Nexuiz - http://alientrap.org/nexuiz
"War does not prove who is right, it proves who is left." - Unknown
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo." - James Klass
"A game is a series of interesting choices." - Sid Meier
i believe that if Sam decided to use a MIT licence all of this discussion
could have been avoided and we would be happily statically linking sdl on
more and more iphone apps, without having to bash Apple design decisions or
criticize a long list of open source licences
bye
Vittorio
Mike Ditka http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mike_ditka.html -
“If God had wanted man to play soccer, he wouldn’t have given us arms.”
sorry, but as an American I equate GPL with the Patriot Act: giving
up freedoms you already have to get some sense of “protection”.
Um, sorry, I can’t follow you. The Patriot act added rights to the
givernment and took rights from you. The GPL gives you rights that had
been taken away from you by the government.
Copyright and patents are nothing more than an artificial monopoly granted
by the government. It is not the FSF’s fault that you can not get the
source code for your favourite commercial SW or that you have no right to
reverse engineer it or do whatever you want with it. The GPL explicitely
gives you those rights. In addition, using the very copyright
legistlation that allows copyright holders to take those rights from you,
the GPL guarantees that those rights can not be taken away.
but mostly, why the hell does someone care what the author
and copyright holder wants to do with their work? because someone
told them their (as in the person who cares what someone else is
doing with their own property) freedoms were at stake. those
are the idiots that really annoy me.
I think you lost me there.
Do you believe that ideas and expressions of thoughts are property?
If so, do you believe that once an idea is well known to all people, it is
still a property of the first person who though about it?
If so, do you believe that even though all people know the idea, the first
person has a right to forcibly stop all other people of utilising the idea
they already know unless they pay?
Now, who’s freedom are we talking about? The freedom to stop everybody to
utilise an idea or the freedom to utilise ideas even if you were not the
one who first thought of them?
Copyrights and patents are inherently flawed because they want to treat
ideas as tangible objects, for the sole purpose of allowing commercial
exploitation. Thus, governments and financial interests made it a law that
you no more have the natural right of using ideas that you know unless the
entity nominated to be the possessor of that idea allows you to do so,
under certain conditiosn and probably after you paying a fee. Note that
the entity more often than not is not the actual person or persons who
came up with the idea, in fact, most of the time the entity is not a
person at all.
The GPL tries to restore the original state of things, where ideas and
expressions of thoughts are not tangible objects and can be exchanged and
utilised freely. If you release your expression of thoughts under the GPL,
the GPL guarantees that that expression and any further expressions of
thoughts that are a continuation of yours will retain their freely usable
property. The copyright legistlation gives a lot of power to the copyright
owner to dictate all the people of the world what they can not do with
the copyrighted material. The GPL very cleverly uses that very power to
dictate that one can not stop others to do anything with the material,
apart from stopping yet others to do whatever they want.
I do not see where do you think the GPL takes you freedoms away?
It is the copyright (and patent) legistlation, that is, your government
that takes away your freedoms. The GPL tries to restore the natural state
of things within the oppressive framework of existing legistlation.
By the way, everybody has a right to publish their work under any license
they like. That is one of those precious freedoms. I hope you do not want
to take it away…
Zoltan
Well, I do not think ideas are properties, but I do think that their
implementations are.
Take any product, say Kindle. It’s an idea: an e-book reader. There were
other e-book readers on the market before it, and others are coming. But
the particular “implementation” Kindle uses should be protected because
Amazon has probably put a lot of money on it’s hardware, software,
prototypes etc. (Research & Development) If anyone could
reverse-engineer Kindle and use the exact same implementation (read:
steal) then why would anyone invest in new technology? Not counting that
it’s the implementation that makes the difference between different
instances of the same idea.
As another example, nothing can stop anyone from creating a
multi-platform, direct media layer. But no one can steal code from SDL
to use in a particular implementation without the consent of SDL authors.
Cheers,
AndreOn 17/02/2010 19:57, zoltan at bendor.com.au wrote:
Do you believe that ideas and expressions of thoughts are property?
I don’t follow this exactly, Andre. I can steal any code I want from SDL
and use it without consent. Can you qualify that further?
Jonny DOn Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Andre Leiradella < aleirade at sct.microlink.com.br> wrote:
On 17/02/2010 19:57, zoltan at bendor.com.au wrote:
Do you believe that ideas and expressions of thoughts are property?
Well, I do not think ideas are properties, but I do think that their
implementations are.Take any product, say Kindle. It’s an idea: an e-book reader. There were
other e-book readers on the market before it, and others are coming. But the
particular “implementation” Kindle uses should be protected because Amazon
has probably put a lot of money on it’s hardware, software, prototypes etc.
(Research & Development) If anyone could reverse-engineer Kindle and use the
exact same implementation (read: steal) then why would anyone invest in new
technology? Not counting that it’s the implementation that makes the
difference between different instances of the same idea.As another example, nothing can stop anyone from creating a multi-platform,
direct media layer. But no one can steal code from SDL to use in a
particular implementation without the consent of SDL authors.Cheers,
Andre
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
But no one can steal code from SDL to use in a particular implementation
without the consent of SDL authors.
He was pretty straightforward.From: sdl-bounces@lists.libsdl.org [mailto:sdl-bounces at lists.libsdl.org] On
Behalf Of Jonathan Dearborn
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 6:37 PM
To: SDL Development List
Subject: Re: [SDL] “galaxy gameworks” charging for a commercial licen
I don’t follow this exactly, Andre. ?I can steal any code I want from SDL
and use it without consent. ?Can you qualify that further?
Jonny D
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Andre Leiradella wrote:
On 17/02/2010 19:57, zoltan at bendor.com.au wrote:
Do you believe that ideas and expressions of thoughts are property?
?
Well, I do not think ideas are properties, but I do think that their
implementations are.
Take any product, say Kindle. It’s an idea: an e-book reader. There were
other e-book readers on the market before it, and others are coming. But the
particular “implementation” Kindle uses should be protected because Amazon
has probably put a lot of money on it’s hardware, software, prototypes etc.
(Research & Development) If anyone could reverse-engineer Kindle and use the
exact same implementation (read: steal) then why would anyone invest in new
technology? Not counting that it’s the implementation that makes the
difference between different instances of the same idea.
As another example, nothing can stop anyone from creating a multi-platform,
direct media layer. But no one can steal code from SDL to use in a
particular implementation without the consent of SDL authors.
Cheers,
Andre
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org