nfries88 wrote:
KHMan wrote:
nfries88 wrote:
Quote:
And this topic sums up my disdain for the free/open source community as
a whole (there’s some sections of it which I like).
[snipped lots of bad language]
Do watch the language, boys… there’s no need to go postal.
[snipped]
Ah, I wasn’t losing my temper, I just tend to swear a lot when I’m
putting things into layman’s terms (or summarizing a long and confusing
piece of text as a sentence or two).
Adults who have responsible positions very rarely behave in such a
manner on a public mailing list cum forum where postings are
archived by multiple parties for posterity. How old are you, I wonder.
Perhaps a modicum of list discipline would make you look better.
Remember, there are a whole lot of people on this list who didn’t
choose to post on this thread but nevertheless can arrive at some
conclusions on your character based on your postings. Nobody can
stop us from swearing all we want in private but doing it in
public detracts from your message and your reputation. All the
world’s a stage, but how you behave with say, beer buddies is not
necessarily suitable for all occasions.
Remember, participants on the list can choose to stop discussion
threads from devolving into the mindless and wasteful
back-and-forths that are common on unmoderated and uncontrolled
sites. We can choose to be more civilized in our behaviour and
stick to SDL and gaming issues.
I will refrain from posting further on this thread unless there is
something I need to directly answer.–
Cheers,
Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
KHMan wrote:
nfries88 wrote:
KHMan wrote:
nfries88 wrote:
Quote:
And this topic sums up my disdain for the free/open source community as
a whole (there’s some sections of it which I like).
[snipped lots of bad language]
Do watch the language, boys… there’s no need to go postal.
[snipped]
Ah, I wasn’t losing my temper, I just tend to swear a lot when I’m
putting things into layman’s terms (or summarizing a long and confusing
piece of text as a sentence or two).
Adults who have responsible positions very rarely behave in such a
manner on a public mailing list cum forum where postings are
archived by multiple parties for posterity. How old are you, I wonder.
Perhaps a modicum of list discipline would make you look better.
Remember, there are a whole lot of people on this list who didn’t
choose to post on this thread but nevertheless can arrive at some
conclusions on your character based on your postings. Nobody can
stop us from swearing all we want in private but doing it in
public detracts from your message and your reputation. All the
world’s a stage, but how you behave with say, beer buddies is not
necessarily suitable for all occasions.
Remember, participants on the list can choose to stop discussion
threads from devolving into the mindless and wasteful
back-and-forths that are common on unmoderated and uncontrolled
sites. We can choose to be more civilized in our behaviour and
stick to SDL and gaming issues.
I will refrain from posting further on this thread unless there is
something I need to directly answer.
–
Cheers,
Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
Oh, I’m 21, since you felt the need to bring age into the matter. And before you attempt to bring maturity into the discussion, I was raised to not be pretentious, so… I can’t really say that I care who looks at this or how “uncivilized” or “unsophisticated” they think I am. This is something that has been programmed into me since I’ve been a small child.
I also doubt I would be rejected for a software / game development job (which is about the only thing any employer would be checking this mailing list for) because I occasionally drop an f-bomb. However, I’ve never worked in the industry as a professional (nor do I truly intend to), so maybe I really wouldn’t know. I would certainly hope that the other messages I’ve left here would define my character well enough for them to doubt whatever the occasional profane message I may leave might mean to them, anyway.
As for my job, I’m an active duty sailor enlisted in the U.S. Navy – nuclear qualified electrician’s mate, to be exact – it’s certainly not a job in which liberal use of profanities is uncommon. I’m certainly not going to be fired or denied re-enlistment for swearing, so I’m not too worried about employment either.
Hello !
Yes, please take this topic off-line. I’m happy to answer any
specific questions off the mailing list, if you’re curious about my
opinion. 
If possible publish your opinion, about the licensing stuff,
here as a last post to this thread.
People are interested in the reasons why you choose
to dual license SDL 1.3 instead of, for example just realease under LGPL
- allow static linking, FLTK does this and it seems to be legal.
I think LGPL allows static linking as long as you release your objects
so that anyone can rebuild your application with the latest release of
the library (or libraries) in question?On 19/02/2010 00:35, Torsten Giebl wrote:
People are also interested why the license costs are as they are.
These questions maybe interesting for everybody and will save
you lots of replys
CU
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
Baaaasically… you’re an idiot.
i read the first few words and came to this conclusion 
all i have to add
is
wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOn 17 February 2010 00:38, Tim Angus wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:21:00 -0800 michelleC wrote:
I think LGPL allows static linking as long as you release your
objects so that anyone can rebuild your application with the latest
release of the library (or libraries) in question?
If you can. I just came across a piece of commercial code that was
dormant on my machine over a handful of system upgrades. Now I fired it
up and it wanted to link dynamically, as per the LGPL, libstdc++. It was
originally linked against version 2.8 of that library. It doesn’t work
with any newer versions, because, unfortunately, backward compatibility
is not a priority for that library. Symbols are missing, references are
made to other libraries and so on.
Now to hunt down the 2.8 version of libstdc++ when the current version
is 6.x is quite a challenge. Luckily I have a server that’s been running
for many years without a system update and I could pull it off of it.
Nevertheless, I’m not very sure that the whole concept of “the user can
replace the library with a newer version” is realistic, especially not
when even the FSF itself doesn’t give a toss about backward
compatibility of libraries. Yes, the user could replace the library,
except that (s)he cannot because then the program wouldn’t link. I’m
all for the GPL, but in case of libraries it seems to be a bit of dodgy
reasoning. In practice even if you have the objects you will more
likely than not unable to link your old object with the latest and
greatest of the library. I’m probably wrong, but I think the LGPL is
just an odd outcome of a free software ideology pushing one way and
users wanting to use commercial code on free platform the other (or, if
you like, users wanting to use the free platform but having to use
commercial code).
You’re absolutely right, but what I was trying to say is that developers
can statically link against LGPL libraries. If the end user will or
will not be able to relink the app with newer versions of the libraries
is another problem.
Cheers,
AndreOn 28/02/2010 07:35, Zolt?n K?csi wrote:
I think LGPL allows static linking as long as you release your
objects so that anyone can rebuild your application with the latest
release of the library (or libraries) in question?
If you can. I just came across a piece of commercial code that was
dormant on my machine over a handful of system upgrades. Now I fired it
up and it wanted to link dynamically, as per the LGPL, libstdc++. It was
originally linked against version 2.8 of that library. It doesn’t work
with any newer versions, because, unfortunately, backward compatibility
is not a priority for that library. Symbols are missing, references are
made to other libraries and so on.
Andre Leiradella wrote:> On 28/02/2010 07:35, Zolt?n K?csi wrote:
I think LGPL allows static linking as long as you release your
objects so that anyone can rebuild your application with the latest
release of the library (or libraries) in question?
If you can. I just came across a piece of commercial code that was
dormant on my machine over a handful of system upgrades. Now I fired it
up and it wanted to link dynamically, as per the LGPL, libstdc++. It was
originally linked against version 2.8 of that library. It doesn’t work
with any newer versions, because, unfortunately, backward compatibility
is not a priority for that library. Symbols are missing, references are
made to other libraries and so on.
You’re absolutely right, but what I was trying to say is that developers
can statically link against LGPL libraries. If the end user will or
will not be able to relink the app with newer versions of the libraries
is another problem.
But this doesn’t really apply to the case of the iPhone anyway.
This topic has gotten way off-point.