Keep SDL Free Sam

Hi,

In case you missed it go here:
http://www.galaxygameworks.com/

I think SDL should remain free.

How do you feel about this?

JeZ+Lee
SLNTHERO at aol.com
Silent Hero Productions ®
Video Game Design Studio
www.SilentHeroProductions.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hello,

SDL will be just like now. The only difference is there will be an
alternative license if you want to do stuff the current SDL license
(LGPL) doesn’t allow. This does not take anything away from how SDL 1.2
behaves, it only adds alternatives for people working in certain
environments that wouldn’t be able to use SDL normally.

Basically, you can use SDL as you always have and get the option to use
it in different ways.

Edgar

Jesse P. wrote:

Hi,

In case you missed it go here:
http://www.galaxygameworks.com/

I think SDL should remain free.

How do you feel about this?

JeZ+Lee
SLNTHERO at aol.com
Silent Hero Productions ®
Video Game Design Studio
www.SilentHeroProductions.com


SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAklctT8ACgkQolm4VNX3QTwuFACeMM8Firv8BaIq6mksZZTKmktg
ELcAoLeAwT1U3LGW3cO+G8EOQ4jj3Bx5
=I5Qn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

I think it’s a great idea, assuming that Sam’s OK’d it with his day job
bosses (or if he’s making this his day job). It’s still free, the
commercial license is for specific “challenging” targets (embedded,
iPhone, etc.) and support.

Isn’t this the FOSS Holy Grail of “how to make money with open source
software”?On 1/1/09 6:40 AM, Jesse P. wrote:

In case you missed it go here:
http://www.galaxygameworks.com/

I think SDL should remain free.

How do you feel about this?

Chris Herborth (@Chris_Herborth) – http://www.pobox.com/~chrish/
Marooned, the survival game! – http://marooned-game.livejournal.com/
Never send a monster to do the work of an evil scientist.

Who said SDL won’t remain free…?

Even in the unlikely case that Sam and co-authors actually withdraw
the LGPL option for some future release, the versions released so far
are still covered by the LGPL, so you’re free to fork a “new” LGPLed
library off of any one of those. Your rights to use that code are
protected forever; that’s one of the major points of licenses like
the LGPL.

Either way, from what I understand, Sam is trying to add something for
those who are willing to pay for it. Apart from official personal
email support, we’ll be able to use SDL on platforms that an LGPLed
library cannot support for legal reasons.

This should be most welcomed by those of us who may want to make their
SDL based products available on more platforms, but cannot really
afford directly supporting a bunch of different APIs.

You could argue that this is supporting “locked in” platforms, but I
don’t really think a minority of developers refusing to support such
platforms is going to change anything. These platforms still get
enough attention to be worthwhile, so we might as well support them
for the extra $ and/or publicity.

You know, make the misguided customers happy, to avoid them blaming
us for not supporting their platforms…

In the long run, we might even nudge things in the right direction, by
luring users over to our preferred platforms, where our software is
available at a lower price. hehe

Happy New Year, and my best wishes to Sam with Galaxy Gameworks!

//David Olofson - Programmer, Composer, Open Source Advocate

.------- http://olofson.net - Games, SDL examples -------.
| http://zeespace.net - 2.5D rendering engine |
| http://audiality.org - Music/audio engine |
| http://eel.olofson.net - Real time scripting |
’-- http://www.reologica.se - Rheology instrumentation --'On Thursday 01 January 2009, Jesse P. wrote:

Hi,

In case you missed it go here:
http://www.galaxygameworks.com/

I think SDL should remain free.

How do you feel about this?

Hi,

In case you missed it go here:

http://www.galaxygameworks.com/

I think SDL should remain free.

How do you feel about this?

Who said SDL won’t remain free…?

Even in the unlikely case that Sam and co-authors actually withdraw

the LGPL option for some future release, the versions released so far

are still covered by the LGPL, so you’re free to fork a “new” LGPLed

library off of any one of those. Your rights to use that code are

protected forever; that’s one of the major points of licenses like

the LGPL.

Either way, from what I understand, Sam is trying to add something for

those who are willing to pay for it. Apart from official personal

email support, we’ll be able to use SDL on platforms that an LGPLed

library cannot support for legal reasons.

This should be most welcomed by those of us who may want to make their

SDL based products available on more platforms, but cannot really

afford directly supporting a bunch of different APIs.

You could argue that this is supporting “locked in” platforms, but I

don’t really think a minority of developers refusing to support such

platforms is going to change anything. These platforms still get

enough attention to be worthwhile, so we might as well support them

for the extra $ and/or publicity.

You know, make the misguided customers happy, to avoid them blaming

us for not supporting their platforms…

In the long run, we might even nudge things in the right direction, by

luring users over to our preferred platforms, where our software is

available at a lower price. hehe

I agree with David. There are a lot of similar software packages that use
this model. Look at MySQL, you can use it for free, but if you want the
latest and greatest with added support you have to buy a license. Consider
it a “premium” option. You can still use SDL 1.3 for Linux, PC, Mac, etc.
for free. If you want to use it in the iPhone/iPod or have static linking
you can pay for a commercial license. Hopefully this will also open the
door for other console support that Sam cannot currently include for legal
reasons (as David mentions).

The only thing I would ask Sam is for him to post the license fees on his
new website so those of us who are interested can order a commercial
license.

Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 11:17 AM
To: sdl at lists.libsdl.org
Subject: Re: [SDL] Keep SDL Free Sam

On Thursday 01 January 2009, Jesse P. wrote:

If there is a “Holy Grail” in FOSS, it’s helping each other. If one can also
make money, that’s just a pleasant side effect.

JeffOn Thursday 01 January 2009 06:02, Chris Herborth wrote:

Isn’t this the FOSS Holy Grail of “how to make money with open source
software”?

Hi,

In case you missed it go here:
http://www.galaxygameworks.com/

I think SDL should remain free.

How do you feel about this?

Real simple.

I whole heartedly approve.

SDL on the iPhone is a no no according the Apple SDK licensing. If I can
acquire an SDL license that is SDK friendly and on the cheap with the
understanding that I’m not expecting a whole lot of ‘paid support’…
then… all the better :).

There are undoubtedly other possible embedded ventures which could suffer
similar licensing issues.

-WillOn Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 5:40 AM, Jesse P. wrote:

SDL on the iPhone is a no no according the Apple SDK licensing. If I can
acquire an SDL license that is SDK friendly and on the cheap with the
understanding that I’m not expecting a whole lot of ‘paid support’…
then… all the better :).

Sorry, should have alluded to the other comments stating that SDL itself
will still remain free and such.

Sam has talked about doing this on the list before concerning the
iPhone/iPod.

This should not be a real shocker to anyone… he even said he’d be doing
this :).

Lemme get my cheerleader pom pom’s so I can cheer Sam on :slight_smile:

-Will

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hello,

SDL will be just like now. The only difference is there will be an
alternative license if you want to do stuff the current SDL license
(LGPL) doesn’t allow. This does not take anything away from how SDL 1.2
behaves, it only adds alternatives for people working in certain
environments that wouldn’t be able to use SDL normally.

Doesn’t this difference in licenses mean that either all the contributors
to SDL approve of the commercial license, or some features of the LGPL
version won’t be in the commercial version? If I was to or already had
contributed code under the LGPL, then wouldn’t the LGPL prohibit that code
from being used in the commercial version when staticly linked?On Thu, 1 Jan 2009, Edgar Simo wrote:

Basically, you can use SDL as you always have and get the option to use
it in different ways.

Edgar

Jesse P. wrote:

Hi,

In case you missed it go here:
http://www.galaxygameworks.com/

I think SDL should remain free.

How do you feel about this?


Jeff Jackowski
http://ro.com/~jeffj/

Doesn’t this difference in licenses mean that either all the contributors

Do not confuse contributor with owner.

Jeff Jackowski wrote:

Doesn’t this difference in licenses mean that either all the contributors
to SDL approve of the commercial license, or some features of the LGPL
version won’t be in the commercial version? If I was to or already had
contributed code under the LGPL, then wouldn’t the LGPL prohibit that code
from being used in the commercial version when staticly linked?

I’d be interested to know this too. When OGRE added a commercial
licensing option, they had to contact every contributor to get their
permission, and re-write the code for anything they couldn’t get
permission for.

John B

Doesn’t this difference in licenses mean that either all the contributors
to SDL approve of the commercial license

Yep.

If I was to or already had
contributed code under the LGPL, then wouldn’t the LGPL prohibit that code
from being used in the commercial version when staticly linked?

Yep. I’m not accepting any code that is LGPL only, precisely to avoid any
confusion.

SDL 1.3 is largely rewritten (hence the bug hunt), and I’m asking any
contributors to code that’s still in there to release their changes
under both the LGPL and the commercial license.

If you’ve contributed code that is in SDL 1.3 and I’ve forgotten you,
please let me know ASAP at @slouken if you are comfortable
with the new licensing terms (either way!).

Thanks!
-Sam Lantinga, Founder and President, Galaxy Gameworks LLC

Jesse P. <SLNTHERO aol.com> writes:

Hi,

In case you missed it go here:
http://www.galaxygameworks.com/

I think SDL should remain free.

How do you feel about this?

JeZ+Lee
SLNTHERO aol.com
Silent Hero Productions ®
Video Game Design Studio
www.SilentHeroProductions.com

Well, as long as the Ninja Richard Stallman doesn’t attack for the dual license,
then it should be ok, right? Do I get a +5 funny? Wait, this isn’t Slashdot.

Seriously though, As long as the library remains free as it has been, this
should be great. Companies that expect to make money by using the library can
pay Sam. If Sam makes enough money this way, maybe he could afford to focus
more on it, and by 2010 we could have SDL 1.4/3.0! But again, as long as this
mailing list, the documents, and the source remains free, there shouldn’t be an
issue.

All of us using it for personal projects should get what we have already, and
companies that want to use it for retail programs/games can pay for support.
It’d be a good coexistence if it works out right. They provide the money, we
provide the… what ever we provide.

This should be good, but I am curious to see how this works out. It sounds like
Sam is shifting attention more towards this again, which could be a very good
thing. But I agree with J. to keep this free as well.

That’s my two cents. Well, after inflation… I owe you for reading this.

  • Micah

Micah Brening wrote:

Jesse P. <SLNTHERO aol.com> writes:

In case you missed it go here:
http://www.galaxygameworks.com/

I think SDL should remain free.

How do you feel about this?
[snip]
[snip]
This should be good, but I am curious to see how this works out. It sounds like
Sam is shifting attention more towards this again, which could be a very good
thing. But I agree with J. to keep this free as well.

FWIW, lawyers even have problems with a well-known MIT-licensed
thingy like Lua, and the authors had to address that by setting up
a mechanism for commercial licensing or something like that IIRC.
It’s a legal thingy, mainly. After all, lawyers are supposed to be
well paid to defend their clients’ interests (pitbulls in defence
of your IP) and they are just covering all the bases. A
hunter-prey ecosystem (like lions and antelopes or Batman Forever)
is an arms race that will tend to escalate. No big deal.–
Cheers,
Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Just be careful not to sell the cow for a few beans. SDL is a good
platform, you wouldn’t want a commercial competitor to realize that
for one license fee he could start his own SDL-distributorship or
something like that. Even if we all can’t stake a legal claim to SDL,
it takes a piece of our hearts with it when it leaves home!

I also feel responsible to note that while being the primary
maintainer of a lib like SDL is a lot of work that deserves rewards,
you should consider being reimbursed if you contribute significant
time and effort to SDL’s commercial-friendly code base.On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Sam Lantinga wrote:

Doesn’t this difference in licenses mean that either all the contributors
to SDL approve of the commercial license

Yep.

If I was to or already had
contributed code under the LGPL, then wouldn’t the LGPL prohibit that code
from being used in the commercial version when staticly linked?

Yep. I’m not accepting any code that is LGPL only, precisely to avoid any
confusion.

SDL 1.3 is largely rewritten (hence the bug hunt), and I’m asking any
contributors to code that’s still in there to release their changes
under both the LGPL and the commercial license.

If you’ve contributed code that is in SDL 1.3 and I’ve forgotten you,
please let me know ASAP at slouken at libsdl.org if you are comfortable
with the new licensing terms (either way!).

Thanks!
-Sam Lantinga, Founder and President, Galaxy Gameworks LLC


SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org


http://codebad.com/

I’d be very interested in a commercial licence for SDL 1.3 but only if a lot of support
can be given to port the libraries to embedded systems.

One of the major problems of 1.2 has been the lack of documentation for what to do
to enable SDL to work on other platforms. Though it has been ported to the Nintendo
DS and others…there is still no guide to doing it…that I know of.

But SDL 1.3, supporting dual screen systems, has a big advantage for embedded applications
in a number of fields…

Ed

Doesn’t this difference in licenses mean that either all the contributors

Do not confuse contributor with owner.

Good point. I’m sure that some folk would argue that "contributing"
does not give up ownership. OTOH I believe that “contributing” means
the same when it is code handed over for use in SDL or an old shirt
handed over to Goodwill. When I contribute something I give up
ownership. That is my point of view on my small “contributions”.

Seriously, Sam has created a great tool and he deserves the
opportunity to make a few bucks off of it. People deserve to make
money off of their work.

Bob PendletonOn Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Will Langford wrote:


SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

±-------------------------------------+

Bob Pendleton wrote:> On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Will Langford wrote:

Seriously, Sam has created a great tool and he deserves the
opportunity to make a few bucks off of it. People deserve to make
money off of their work.

Bob Pendleton

The company Sam works for (Blizzard Entertainment)
earns over 20 Million dollars a month in subscription fees
for World of Warcraft, how much money does one person need?

Seriously, Sam has created a great tool and he deserves the
opportunity to make a few bucks off of it. People deserve to make
money off of their work.

While I won’t disagree with that, I can’t help but wonder about the logic of this particular move. Surely whatever Sam ends up making by selling commercial SDL licenses will only be an insignificant fraction of the salary he’s already pulling in as a senior muckety-muck on what’s quite possibly the most popular game in the entire world. So what’s the reason for it?>----- Original Message ----

From: Bob Pendleton
Subject: Re: [SDL] Keep SDL Free Sam

Doesn’t this difference in licenses mean that either all the contributors

Do not confuse contributor with owner.

Good point. Some contributors may donate their code to another
copyright-holding entity.

Good point. I’m sure that some folk would argue that "contributing"
does not give up ownership. OTOH I believe that “contributing” means
the same when it is code handed over for use in SDL or an old shirt
handed over to Goodwill. When I contribute something I give up
ownership. That is my point of view on my small “contributions”.

This is certainly not the default case in the FOSS community. Plenty
of individuals called “contributors” do something called
"contributing" in such a way that their interests are still protected
by copyright law. For many of us, that is the critical feature of the
GNU GPL and licenses like it.

Seriously, Sam has created a great tool and he deserves the
opportunity to make a few bucks off of it. People deserve to make
money off of their work.

I don’t think anyone disagrees. But it would be kind of sad and unfair
(to say the least) if someone working out of their parents’ garage for
public welfare “contributed” their code to a commercial enterprise
without reimbursement.On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Bob Pendleton wrote:

On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Will Langford wrote:


http://codebad.com/