SDL and friends static linking

SDL Development
21

I’m not exactly sure what you meant by “GPL or equivalent license”,
but I’d like to point out that using any GPL-compatible licensed code
(Various Licenses and Comments about Them - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation) as
part of a larger base of GPL code is allowed
(Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation).

So basically a GPL program or library can use code from, or link to a
BSD, Apache, MIT, etc. licensed library.On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 14:51, Sam Lantinga wrote:

On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 14:56 -0500, Will Langford wrote:

Standard disclaimer about excessive static linking and licensing issues. If
one of the nested libraries is GPL, you have to be GPL.

is Wrong.

If you have an alternate download with a dynamically linked version this
would be enough to satisfy the licence.

No, is Right. You’re thinking of the LGPL. The GNU C library has a special
exception to the GPL allowing linking with it. The standard GPL requires that
all linked code also be under the GPL or equivalent license, regardless of how
it’s linked. It’s a very restrictive license that’s really only useful for
completely open source projects that only use open source code and only allow
themselves to be used in open source code. It’s viral that way. :slight_smile:

–

  • SR
22

I’m not exactly sure what you meant by “GPL or equivalent license”,
but I’d like to point out that using any GPL-compatible licensed code
(Various Licenses and Comments about Them - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation) as
part of a larger base of GPL code is allowed
(Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation).

So basically a GPL program or library can use code from, or link to a
BSD, Apache, MIT, etc. licensed library.

I’d call that nitpicking over usage of the word ‘equivalent’ vs ‘compatible’
:).

Conversation flow was:

  • static link with intended license unknown to list

  • nested GPL warning

  • warning discarded due to also allowing dynamic link as plausible solution

  • first rebuttal stating dynamic link is generally seen as including the GPL
    project

  • second rebuttal stating that you have use ‘equivalent’ license, with more
    explanation on viralness

  • OP states they were going to release the source in some manner, LGPL
    probably

-Will

23

I don’t think so. The BSD license isn’t ‘equivalent’ to the GPL.On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 18:51, Will Langford wrote:

I’d call that nitpicking over usage of the word ‘equivalent’ vs ‘compatible’
:).

–

  • SR