Ok, I’m very new to licensing issues. I want to play it safe and
doublecheck some things. I’ve been helping work with the python
wrapping for SDL. I’ve been experimenting with a new build
method on my own. It’s all working now, but I haven’t released
anything yet.
There’s two main things I want to check on.
First, I have a source release that contains all the sourcecode
for all the dependencies (SDL, SDL_image, SDL_mixer, SDL_ttf,
freetype, (and likely SMPEG soon too)). The source for these
packages is sitting in its own subdirectory and remains totally
untouched from the original downloads. (although i’ll probably
remove the visualc.zip and mac.hqx files). This looks very
similar to the way SDL_mixer is releases, with the source for
timidity and mikmod included in their own directories. So I
am assuming it’s not too improper.
The other question would be about a binary release. (This
method is probably more likely on the windows side of things).
This binary release takes all the source and links it into one
big shared library. (about 450K, btw) Is it possible to release
something like this? Do the SDL licenses allow it? If I can
release something like this, what sort of text files need to be
included with it?
Is it better to release one of these styles and not the other?
Note that I’m not the maintainer of the python sdl wrapping,
but i am interested in cleaning this up and presenting it
at some point. I am also not that interested in learning the
intricacies of law at all, or intersted in pushing anything
to the legal limits. I just want to know what the accepted
behavior is for these packages.
Also, the python wrapping is fully open source. If it was
eventually released under something like this, does that
place and major limitations on what other people can do
with it?
Anyways, I know this probably isn’t the best place to go
for official legal advice. But if someone understands the
general acceptable uses for these libraries, I’d be glad
to get an explanation about that.
Thanks all.