LGPL issues

SDL Development
1

I want to release my new game, which uses both SDL and SDL_mixer, as
shareware. (I will only discuss SDL below for simplicity; the same issues
apply to SDL_mixer). I see the following possibilities for fulfilling the
requirements of the LGPL:

  1. I release the game (in binary form) without SDL. I ask people to get SDL
    as a separate download. This will likely confuse and annoy the average
    Windows user, and will thus significantly reduce my audience.

  2. I release the game and include SDL in both binary and source form. This
    would significantly increase the size of my distribution and would therefore
    decrease my audience.

  3. I include SDL in binary form only with my game distribution. According
    to the LGPL, I can do this as long as I place SDL in source form at the same
    location so people who download my game also have the option of downloading
    the SDL source. This is not a good solution because it forces all download
    sites that carry my game to also carry SDL in source form.

  4. I distribute my game as a “work that uses the library” under section 6 of
    the LGPL. This not only shares the problem with option #3 above, it also
    requires "that the terms [of my license] permit modification of the work for
    the customer’s own use and reverse engineering for debugging such
    modifications. This means that if I require a registration code to unlock
    the full program (as I intend to), the user has the legal right to hack past
    the check for the registration code.

  5. I exploit a loophole in section 6 of the LGPL that allows me to create a
    work linked with SDL and grant myself license to distribute it without the
    restrictions of the LGPL. (“As an exception to the Sections above, you may
    also compile or link a “work that uses the Library” with the Library to
    produce a work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work
    under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of
    the work for the customer’s own use and reverse engineering for debugging
    such modifications.” - I would be both distributor and cutomer, garnting
    myself a license to do what I will.) This sounds a bit too clever to be
    legal or ethical.

  6. I can see if later versions of the LGPL are more useful. :frowning:

Any comments? Is my interpretation of the LGPL flawed?–
Rainer Deyke (root at rainerdeyke.com)
Shareware action/role-playing games - http://rainerdeyke.com
"In ihren Reihen zu stehen heisst unter Feinden zu kaempfen" - Abigor

2

See http://www.libsdl.org/license.html. It explains three ways to comply
with the license. It sounds like option 2 would fit your needs best.

-John

Rainer Deyke wrote:>

I want to release my new game, which uses both SDL and SDL_mixer, as
shareware. (I will only discuss SDL below for simplicity; the same issues
apply to SDL_mixer). I see the following possibilities for fulfilling the
requirements of the LGPL:

  1. I release the game (in binary form) without SDL. I ask people to get SDL
    as a separate download. This will likely confuse and annoy the average
    Windows user, and will thus significantly reduce my audience.

  2. I release the game and include SDL in both binary and source form. This
    would significantly increase the size of my distribution and would therefore
    decrease my audience.

  3. I include SDL in binary form only with my game distribution. According
    to the LGPL, I can do this as long as I place SDL in source form at the same
    location so people who download my game also have the option of downloading
    the SDL source. This is not a good solution because it forces all download
    sites that carry my game to also carry SDL in source form.

  4. I distribute my game as a “work that uses the library” under section 6 of
    the LGPL. This not only shares the problem with option #3 above, it also
    requires "that the terms [of my license] permit modification of the work for
    the customer’s own use and reverse engineering for debugging such
    modifications. This means that if I require a registration code to unlock
    the full program (as I intend to), the user has the legal right to hack past
    the check for the registration code.

  5. I exploit a loophole in section 6 of the LGPL that allows me to create a
    work linked with SDL and grant myself license to distribute it without the
    restrictions of the LGPL. (“As an exception to the Sections above, you may
    also compile or link a “work that uses the Library” with the Library to
    produce a work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work
    under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of
    the work for the customer’s own use and reverse engineering for debugging
    such modifications.” - I would be both distributor and cutomer, garnting
    myself a license to do what I will.) This sounds a bit too clever to be
    legal or ethical.

  6. I can see if later versions of the LGPL are more useful. :frowning:

Any comments? Is my interpretation of the LGPL flawed?

–
Rainer Deyke (root at rainerdeyke.com)
Shareware action/role-playing games - http://rainerdeyke.com
"In ihren Reihen zu stehen heisst unter Feinden zu kaempfen" - Abigor

3
  1. I include SDL in binary form only with my game distribution. According
    to the LGPL, I can do this as long as I place SDL in source form at the same
    location so people who download my game also have the option of downloading
    the SDL source. This is not a good solution because it forces all download
    sites that carry my game to also carry SDL in source form.

I would be happy if you include in your README that the game use SDL
and that people may get the version used with your game from your
website at blah blah blah. As far as I’m concerned as long as you
have a public distribution point for your game and you allow people
to download the source at that point, the LGPL is satisfied, even if
there are other places people can get the game - as long as your
distribution point is advertised in the distributed documentation.

Sound good?

See ya!
-Sam Lantinga, Lead Programmer, Loki Entertainment Software

4

Rainer Deyke wrote:

  1. I exploit a loophole in section 6 of the LGPL that allows me to create a
    work linked with SDL and grant myself license to distribute it without the
    restrictions of the LGPL. (“As an exception to the Sections above, you may
    also compile or link a “work that uses the Library” with the Library to
    produce a work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work
    under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of
    the work for the customer’s own use and reverse engineering for debugging
    such modifications.” - I would be both distributor and cutomer, garnting
    myself a license to do what I will.) This sounds a bit too clever to be
    legal or ethical.

Any comments? Is my interpretation of the LGPL flawed?

Yes. The customer of your game would also be a customer of SDL. You’re
not the only customer. This is like the users on Windows having to get
DirectX (and complying to its license) and your game (complying to its
license also). Packing DirectX on a game CD doesn’t preclude DirectX’s
license.–
“Unix gives you just enough rope to hang yourself – and then a couple
of more feet, just to be sure.” – Eric Allman

5

Sam Lantinga wrote:

  1. I include SDL in binary form only with my game distribution.
    According to the LGPL, I can do this as long as I place SDL in
    source form at the same location so people who download my game
    also have the option of downloading the SDL source. This is not
    a good solution because it forces all download sites that carry
    my game to also carry SDL in source form.

I would be happy if you include in your README that the game use SDL
and that people may get the version used with your game from your
website at blah blah blah. As far as I’m concerned as long as you
have a public distribution point for your game and you allow people
to download the source at that point, the LGPL is satisfied, even if
there are other places people can get the game - as long as your
distribution point is advertised in the distributed documentation.

The only thing I’d make sure with this is that there is no custom
modifications to the SDL in his version, that would make things
difficult for him. He’ll just have to contribute his changes. :-)–
“Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it,
poorly.” – Henry Spencer

6

Provide it in binary form, statically linked.
Include the LGPL License and a README that says they may request from you
a dynamically linked version with the exact sourcecode to the library used
in your program. You must make it available in the same manner you made
the original one available.

I believe this is what Loki has done in the past with their games. Maybe
Sam can clarify if that isn’t the case.

Or, put SDL source to the version you use as well as the binary to your
program in the same directory. Many sites just mirror directories anyway.

Just remember, you must provide a version dynamically linked to SDL
somehow, because the whole reason behind the LGPL is to allow the end user
to patch or modify the library in case you decide it isn’t worth your
time.–
Brian

  1. I include SDL in binary form only with my game distribution. According
    to the LGPL, I can do this as long as I place SDL in source form at the same
    location so people who download my game also have the option of downloading
    the SDL source. This is not a good solution because it forces all download
    sites that carry my game to also carry SDL in source form.

  2. I distribute my game as a “work that uses the library” under section 6 of
    the LGPL. This not only shares the problem with option #3 above, it also
    requires "that the terms [of my license] permit modification of the work for
    the customer’s own use and reverse engineering for debugging such
    modifications. This means that if I require a registration code to unlock
    the full program (as I intend to), the user has the legal right to hack past
    the check for the registration code.

  3. I exploit a loophole in section 6 of the LGPL that allows me to create a
    work linked with SDL and grant myself license to distribute it without the
    restrictions of the LGPL. (“As an exception to the Sections above, you may
    also compile or link a “work that uses the Library” with the Library to
    produce a work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work
    under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of
    the work for the customer’s own use and reverse engineering for debugging
    such modifications.” - I would be both distributor and cutomer, garnting
    myself a license to do what I will.) This sounds a bit too clever to be
    legal or ethical.

  4. I can see if later versions of the LGPL are more useful. :frowning:

Any comments? Is my interpretation of the LGPL flawed?

–
Rainer Deyke (root at rainerdeyke.com)
Shareware action/role-playing games - http://rainerdeyke.com
"In ihren Reihen zu stehen heisst unter Feinden zu kaempfen" - Abigor

7

I believe that is not allowed under the terms of the LGPL — The user
must be able to relink the program.On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 09:25:58PM -0500, hayward at slothmud.org wrote:

Provide it in binary form, statically linked.
Include the LGPL License and a README that says they may request from you
a dynamically linked version with the exact sourcecode to the library used
in your program. You must make it available in the same manner you made
the original one available.

–
“Isn’t vi that text editor with two modes… one that beeps and one
that corrupts your file?” – Dan Jocabson, on comp.os.linux.advocacy

8

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

  1. I release the game and include SDL in both binary and source form. This
    would significantly increase the size of my distribution and would therefore
    decrease my audience.

Are you kidding? SDL is still small enough to fit on a single 3.5" floppy
disk. Untarred, it is 5.5 megs. That’s pathetically small when you think
that you have 600 megs on a CD-ROM to work with!

  1. I include SDL in binary form only with my game distribution. According
    to the LGPL, I can do this as long as I place SDL in source form at the same
    location so people who download my game also have the option of downloading
    the SDL source. This is not a good solution because it forces all download
    sites that carry my game to also carry SDL in source form.

And what is the problem with that? Again, SDL’s source tarball is still
less than one meg, and likely to remain so in the foreseeable future;
unless Sam and other guys decide to change SDL’s name to ‘Complex
DirectMedia Library’. I’ve been using SDL since around 0.86, I think,
well over two years, and its size has remained consistently below one meg,
despite all the changes that have happened since then.

I don’t know why the heck it is that people are always whining about the
simple things necessary for compliance with LGPL. I would understand if
SDL’s source distribution were of significant size, say, more than a 20
meg tarball, but in SDL’s case the tarball is just a little less than one
meg in size (1022045 bytes for SDL 1.1.3, 872107 bytes if compressed using
bzip2). Other external LGPLed libraries increase the source distribution
size by only a little more (SDL_image is 123K, SDL_ttf is 115K, and SMPEG
is 272K). The entire list of source tarballs for SDL and the libraries
that use it listed on libsdl.org is still under 4 megs. And I don’t know
why that is such a problem, because in all likelihood, the artwork and
multimedia files for your game will already be of far greater size than
that. It’s a drop in the bucket of a CD-ROM. In all likelihood, your
game will be twenty times its size.

Rafael R. Sevilla <@Rafael_R_Sevilla> +63 (2) 4342217
ICSM-F Development Team, UP Diliman +63 (917) 4458925
PGP Key available at http://home.pacific.net.ph/~dido/dido.pgp

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

iQA/AwUBOYuutGqsapcaCwm7EQIOtgCfZ4zej5sTJfqLEcbpsvEPYO4hSG4An2D4
WC+h1N7ero/2RQH1Vs1sd3Yy
=dbqk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Rainer Deyke wrote:

9

“Rafael R. Sevilla” wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.10008051350400.3964-100000 at altair.localdomain…

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

  1. I release the game and include SDL in both binary and source form.
    This

would significantly increase the size of my distribution and would
therefore

decrease my audience.

Are you kidding? SDL is still small enough to fit on a single 3.5" floppy
disk. Untarred, it is 5.5 megs. That’s pathetically small when you think
that you have 600 megs on a CD-ROM to work with!

I’m distributing my games electronically through my web page, not on CD-ROM.
When the full game is less than 500K, adding a megabyte of source code is
significant.> On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Rainer Deyke wrote:

–
Rainer Deyke (root at rainerdeyke.com)
Shareware action/role-playing games - http://rainerdeyke.com
"In ihren Reihen zu stehen heisst unter Feinden zu kaempfen" - Abigor

10

“Sam Lantinga” wrote in message
news:E13KrMA-0002SR-00 at roboto.devolution.com…

I would be happy if you include in your README that the game use SDL
and that people may get the version used with your game from your
website at blah blah blah. As far as I’m concerned as long as you
have a public distribution point for your game and you allow people
to download the source at that point, the LGPL is satisfied, even if
there are other places people can get the game - as long as your
distribution point is advertised in the distributed documentation.

Sound good?

Yes.–
Rainer Deyke (root at rainerdeyke.com)
Shareware action/role-playing games - http://rainerdeyke.com
"In ihren Reihen zu stehen heisst unter Feinden zu kaempfen" - Abigor

11

If you really want to have it statically linked, why not just include two
binaries. One dynamic and one static. That way your program can default to
the static executable and the only people who even see the dynamic one are
the people who know what they’re doing, and not messing stuff up.>From: QuoteMstr

Reply-To: sdl at lokigames.com
To: sdl at lokigames.com
Subject: Re: [SDL] LGPL issues
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 23:21:20 -0400

On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 09:25:58PM -0500, hayward at slothmud.org wrote:

Provide it in binary form, statically linked.
Include the LGPL License and a README that says they may request from
you
a dynamically linked version with the exact sourcecode to the library
used
in your program. You must make it available in the same manner you made
the original one available.

I believe that is not allowed under the terms of the LGPL — The user
must be able to relink the program.

–
“Isn’t vi that text editor with two modes… one that beeps and one
that corrupts your file?” – Dan Jocabson, on comp.os.linux.advocacy

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com