Iphone, and releasing object code satisfies LGPL Re: Static building and bundling of SDL

I don’t think this is true - it should be possible to release app
store programs on the iphone that satisfy the LGPL license and apples
license.

What about the object code parts of the LGPL? If you release your
object code, then users can relink newer versions of SDL. This
fulfills the LGPL licence requirements and the no dynlib requirement
of apple.

Section 4. d. 0 says this about object code:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html

d) Do one of the following:

* 0) Convey the Minimal Corresponding Source under the terms of

this License, and the Corresponding Application Code in a form
suitable for, and under terms that permit, the user to recombine or
relink the Application with a modified version of the Linked Version
to produce a modified Combined Work, in the manner specified by
section 6 of the GNU GPL for conveying Corresponding Source.

It matches the spirit of both licenses because:

  • The LGPL wants users to be able to change the LGPL part of the
    program if they need to.
  • The apple license does not want people to be able to load
    different shared libraries.

I’m not a lawyer, but this seems to satisfy the LGPL, and what I’ve
heard of the apple license – both in spirit and letter of the
licenses.

Does anyone see a problem with doing this? Sam?On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 6:16 AM, Pierre Phaneuf wrote:

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 12:01 PM, casey dunham <casey.dunham at gmail.com> wrote:

I am looking at extracting these out even more than I have from my current
two projects and building the code base into a reusable DLL. I wanted to
find out what I am allowed to do as far as statically linking the required
SDL libraries into my own DLL along with my codebase, so in future projects
I will only have to include a single DLL. I am not going to be selling any
of my projects in any way, and they will be distributed with source code
either together, or as an optional download.

That would depend on the license of your own code. If it is LGPL as
well, this would be okay (and a closed source application that would
comply with the LGPL for your library would also make it comply with
SDL’s LGPL license as a side-effect).

You don’t really have to embed SDL’s source code in your package
either, you’d just need a slightly creative linker invocation for
building your DLL.

Note that it’s impossible for a closed source application to use LGPL
code on the iPhone, hence Sam’s new company, Galaxy Gameworks, being
particularly interesting to some people…

You can distribute a static binary if dynamic binaries and/or your
source code are also made available. It’s not more complicated than
this.On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 1:42 AM, Ren? Dudfield wrote:

I’m not a lawyer, but this seems to satisfy the LGPL, and what I’ve
heard of the apple license – both in spirit and letter of the
licenses.


http://codebad.com/

What about the object code parts of the LGPL? If you release your
object code, then users can relink newer versions of SDL. This
fulfills the LGPL licence requirements and the no dynlib requirement
of apple.

That’s true, I stand corrected. I guess that even dynamic linking
might possibly be okay, since whoever wants to mess with SDL with a
closed source application probably won’t be putting it up on the App
Store (but rather install it in “adhoc mode” or something)… The same
logic would apply to other embedded platforms like Nintendo DS, say.

It still is a bit of a pain, because you might not want to make the
object files (or dynamically linked binaries) generally available, it
would involve some infrastructure to allow only authorized people
(those who bought the game) to get them. Or you could do like id
Software did with Quake3 (and possibly their other games), only really
protect the resource file and distribute the binaries willy-nilly.On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 1:42 AM, Ren? Dudfield wrote:


http://pphaneuf.livejournal.com/

It says you can distribute one if you make your object code available
so that users can link changed LGPL code.On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 5:48 AM, Donny Viszneki <donny.viszneki at gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 1:42 AM, Ren? Dudfield <@Rene_Dudfield> wrote:

I’m not a lawyer, but this seems to satisfy the LGPL, and what I’ve
heard of the apple license – both in spirit and letter of the
licenses.

You can distribute a static binary if dynamic binaries and/or your
source code are also made available. It’s not more complicated than
this.