Legal Questions

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.

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

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.

Of course. This is in perfect compliance with LGPL, which is the
licensing scheme for all the libraries you mentioned. You can even make
modifications to the distributions if you prefer; as long as you make a
note of what you did with each one and say that it is not the official
distribution.

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?

Well, this is probably safe, if you do one of the following things:

  1. If you put your binary up for download somewhere, you must keep the
    source distributions for all the libraries you used available on the same
    server. This effectively forces you to become a mirror site for whatever
    libraries you used. In this case, I don’t think that’s a problem, since
    you’ve already said that you do this above.

  2. Sam has said in a previous thread a while back about LGPL compliance
    that he will allow links to where source distributions of SDL you happen
    to be using can be found. This also applies, I believe, to any other
    SDL-related libraries (e.g. SDL_ttf, SDL_net, and SDL_mixer). This would
    presumably not apply to LGPLed libraries by other people. It would be
    safer to get it in writing, though. Talk to Sam.

  3. With the exceptions noted above, it will probably be necessary for you
    to include source for all LGPLed libraries in other distribution formats
    as well. This is no problem if it’s on CD-ROM or some other high capacity
    storage medium, but may prove problematic for smaller media like floppies.


Rafael R. Sevilla <@Rafael_R_Sevilla> +63 (2) 4342217
ICSM-F Development Team, UP Diliman +63 (917) 4458925
PGP Key ID: 0x1A0B09BB

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.1i

iQA/AwUBOcgjMGqsapcaCwm7EQJjOACfVA9O0yHIRBedOygs360om8GWsjMAoJzC
Qyhm9T/oegqUTpAQ9Oswef3r
=g3Q1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Pete Shinners wrote:

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.

Sounds cool.

I’ll try to answer your questions to the best of my ability.

DISCLAIMER:
I am not a lawyer. What I say will satisfy me, but may not follow
the letter of the license, so be sure to check with the original
authors if you have any further questions.

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.

Sounds fine.

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?

I think you can do this, as long as you provide the source to all
the libraries, and the tools to rebuild the giant shared object
at the same place people get the binary release.

You should probably include a README that tells what all is included
in the binary release, along with any relevant documentation that comes
with the included libraries, like README-SDL.txt, for example.

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.

Again, I’m not a lawyer, so I can just tell you my opinion.

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?

Yes. Read the available open source licences carefully. I think
to be safe you should make sure that all the licenses are compatible.
For example, if you release under the LGPL, you can’t include a
library that is under the GPL, but if you include libraries that
all have the LGPL license, I think you can release the whole thing
under the GPL, although anyone will be free to extract the original
libraries and redistribute them under the original license.

Again, check with a lawyer to be sure.

Good luck!
-Sam Lantinga, Lead Programmer, Loki Entertainment Software