Es schrieb Andy Gordon:
“For example, if you distribute copies of the library, whether gratis or
for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that we gave you.
You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code.
If you link other code with the library, you must provide complete
object files to the recipients, so that they can relink them with the
library after making changes to the library and recompiling it. And you
must show them these terms so they know their rights.”
So basically, I spend time and effort gathering versions of SDL, freetype
etc. that actually work together, spend time debugging the whole damned
thing, and packaging it up into a form that I KNOW works, only to have
numerous people relinking it with OTHER versions of the library…
errr. that sux.
So basically we can have no quality control over this at all…
[de]bugged on some platforms and not others…
I work in a job where we do customer support (as well as dev) and you can
the Joe Public installes a different older SDL app, which itself installs
a version of SDL, say v1.1.2
now on linux this could change the symlink libSDL.so to point to the older
library…screwing up my app. Or it could conceivably install in a
Windows too. Though windows should check the local folder first, thne the
hurrah, DLL hell.
It’s stupid to allow end users to relink with libraries…
Users should not be encouraged to “jury Rig” applications…
For every user that hacks a bugged app into working, that’s (usually) an
bug that goes unreported.
not quite so sure I can be bothered with ANY LGPL stuff anymore…
it seems like a support nightmare…
so, why do you talk about the license of the library SDL?
You can sell your program with a different license (that’s
the benefit of the L in LGPL), and if you really care,
just make a note that they loose their rights to contact
your support if the users relinks it with a different beast.
The LGPL cares about modifications of the library, not your
program, and that the user has the chance (!!) to do that to
the library, which is a different thing than being encouraged
to do so. Just note that the LGPL reads “can”, not “shall”.
And it doesn’t read, you “must” continue support for a
modified lib, just that it is allowed without a vendor to
sue that person down who inspects/modifies the lib code.
And on the other hand, how do you think you can get absolute
control over the system libs? Do you sell your programs
usually to some specific windows version with some specific
service pack version, and some specific security fixes
put in? So that all the dlls in the system are exactly the
ones you have tested it with? Do you think of games as
rocket science or medical gadgets? Ho ho ho… and in any
chance, you can make a note that you only warrant this
quality with some specific versions, and anything beyond
get’s void, and dependent on the skills of the person who
modified the lib.
On the contrary, LGPL’s primary purpose is that Jack Pro can fix
some bugs in the lib of the program of Joe Public uses, no
matter how long the support staff will need, or whether the
patches are sold in the form of the service packs, - here the
lib gets not discussed with the vendor, but with the opensource
community - we’ll just reject bugs that the vendor did
introduce, but otherwise we like to hear them - it could help
other people too, to bring around a lib of the same highest
quality like SDL.
so, you did … a long rant … on false ground.
– guido http://freespace.sf.net/guidod
GCS/E/S/P C++/++++$ ULHS L++w- N++@ d(±) s+a- r+@>+++ y++ 5++X- (geekcode)