The restrictions on proprietary embedded development made by the LGPL are, to
my understanding of the FSF’s philosophies, completely deliberate; the FSF
doesn’t want to fix them. (Instead, they’d prefer the software act as a lever
to force vendors to open source their tools.)On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 11:05:16AM +0200, Gregor M?ckl wrote:
Maybe you should talk to the FSF and persuade them to considere a new version
of the GPL/LGPL, because SDL is not the only library that’s potentially
hindered.
–
Glenn Maynard
Glenn Maynard wrote:>On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 11:05:16AM +0200, Gregor M?ckl wrote:
Maybe you should talk to the FSF and persuade them to considere a new version
of the GPL/LGPL, because SDL is not the only library that’s potentially
hindered.
The restrictions on proprietary embedded development made by the LGPL are, to
my understanding of the FSF’s philosophies, completely deliberate; the FSF
doesn’t want to fix them. (Instead, they’d prefer the software act as a lever
to force vendors to open source their tools.)
Quite, but the larger issue (and why PhysFS changed to a BSDish license)
is the problem of relinking
a program stored in a rom, or some other device or medium that requires
rather special hardware to
modify or recreate.
–
John Allensworth
Glenn Maynard wrote:
Maybe you should talk to the FSF and persuade them to considere a new version
of the GPL/LGPL, because SDL is not the only library that’s potentially
hindered.
The restrictions on proprietary embedded development made by the LGPL are, to
my understanding of the FSF’s philosophies, completely deliberate; the FSF
doesn’t want to fix them. (Instead, they’d prefer the software act as a lever
to force vendors to open source their tools.)
Quite, but the larger issue (and why PhysFS changed to a BSDish license)
is the problem of relinking
a program stored in a rom, or some other device or medium that requires
rather special hardware to
modify or recreate.
Is this a case where you can comply with the letter of the LGPL even
though you know you can not comply with the spirit? As long as you
provide the ability to relink and object files needed to relink, aren’t
you in compliance even though the end user is unlikely to be able to
burn a new ROM?
Remember that many commercial products including most of the Linksys
routers and now cell phone are all based on the Linux kernel (GPL) and
use many libraries (LGPL) and utilities (GPL) and yet they are still
considered to comply so long as the end user can relink and burn a new
ROM should they chose to do so.
Bob PendletonOn Mon, 2004-08-09 at 14:27, John Allensworth wrote:
On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 11:05:16AM +0200, Gregor M?ckl wrote:
–
John Allensworth
SDL mailing list
SDL at libsdl.org
http://www.libsdl.org/mailman/listinfo/sdl
–
±-------------------------------------+
Anyway, I see that nothing can be done. I’ll look elsewhere.
It occurs to me that I was probably a bit harsh; sorry about that.
Is it possible, just in looking for a solution, to write a simple stub
for OCaml that gets statically linked, which will call dlopen() on the
SDL library?
–ryan.