SDL Fullscreen probs

hayward_at_slothmud · December 24, 1999, 6:33am

Hello,

I’m having problems getting my application to go fullscreen under linux
(haven’t tried it under windows yet).

I was unable to find any info by reading through the FAQ regarding getting
FULLSCREEN to work properly.

I’m running XFree86 3.3.5, SVGA server on a Matrox G200 w/8MB ram.

scrn =
SDL_SetVideoMode(800,600,0,SDL_SWSURFACE|SDL_FULLSCREEN);

My X server has an “800x600” resolution in the section for my card. I
even tried running it in purely 800x600 mode by removing all other modes
from that line, it still wouldn’t switch to fullscreen.

I’ve tried with SDL_SWSURFACE, SDL_HWSURFACE, or just SDL_FULLSCREEN and
no other options.

I’d like to gather information on the catches to getting SDL going
fullscreen and submit them to Sam for an addition to the Linux FAQ.

vmware uses DGA and switches to fullscreen for me just fine.

any help would be appreciated,–
Brian

hayward_at_slothmud · December 24, 1999, 7:13am

ok… silly me. Scratch this request… chown root prog;chmod u+s prog
sorry for the waste of bandwidth… though it might still be useful to
throw that into the Linux FAQ.
–BrianOn Fri, 24 Dec 1999 @hayward_at_slothmud wrote:

Hello,

I’m having problems getting my application to go fullscreen under linux
(haven’t tried it under windows yet).

I was unable to find any info by reading through the FAQ regarding getting
FULLSCREEN to work properly.

I’m running XFree86 3.3.5, SVGA server on a Matrox G200 w/8MB ram.

scrn =
SDL_SetVideoMode(800,600,0,SDL_SWSURFACE|SDL_FULLSCREEN);

My X server has an “800x600” resolution in the section for my card. I
even tried running it in purely 800x600 mode by removing all other modes
from that line, it still wouldn’t switch to fullscreen.

I’ve tried with SDL_SWSURFACE, SDL_HWSURFACE, or just SDL_FULLSCREEN and
no other options.

I’d like to gather information on the catches to getting SDL going
fullscreen and submit them to Sam for an addition to the Linux FAQ.

vmware uses DGA and switches to fullscreen for me just fine.

any help would be appreciated,

Brian

Vikram_Subramanian · December 24, 1999, 7:42am

hayward at slothmud.org wrote:

ok… silly me. Scratch this request… chown root prog;chmod u+s prog
sorry for the waste of bandwidth… though it might still be useful to
throw that into the Linux FAQ.
–Brian

Talking of the Linux FAQ I think the DISPLAY variable thing(:0.0 instead of unix:0.0) should also be
put in.Eventhough the CVS version has fixed that people might have problem with games like Myth II
where it is statically linked.

hayward_at_slothmud · December 24, 1999, 8:43am

put in.Eventhough the CVS version has fixed that people might have
problem with games like Myth II where it is statically linked.

[Sorry, this is off-topic… And I tend to babble on and on.
Delete now if you don’t have a few minutes.
It’s more about GPL/LGPL issues than anything.]

Hrmm… statically linked eh?
I guess that doesn’t matter to loki, because Sam created SDL and gave
them a different license to use SDL. Someone using SDL under the LGPL
cannot statically link.

I think it might get more complicated when other developers contribute
their own fixes/changes/upgrades to SDL and release their changes under
the LGPL as well.

Wouldn’t that in effect bind Sam and loki to the LGPL for future releases
as well, Unless of course the other developers knew that by contributing
code to SDL, they were in effect turning over ownership to their changes
to him as well (like an employee typically does to a company when being
paid to develop) Which would allow Sam to hold the copyright to his code
and the code contributed by others. This often requires a signed
statement giving up rights to the additions though.—
So in effect, GPL’ing your code and taking full advantage of the strengths
of open source software can in effect bind you to that license as well,
even if your goal is to maintain the copyright on the code and use it in a
proprietary fashion at a later time.

For example, say you make a quicken clone and GPL it. You accept changes
and enhancements from developers around the world, while the product gets
really popular.

Even though you invented the product, you still might not be able to
create an “enhanced” version of this product (say with online banking, or
whatever) and sell it close-sourced under a different license (unless you
are careful!)

Because once one of the developers that added “component X” is cut out of
the deal, they might complain that they gave their code to the original
authors under the GPL only.

I don’t believe this was an unforseen side-affect of the GPL either.

Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not trying to say it’s bad or good. It’s
just something that GPL developers should be consciously aware of.

I know most of us would be happy to contribute to SDL with the assumption
that Sam owns SDL (including the changes we donate). But that might not
always be the case… It at least leaves a door open for someone to be
greedy when Loki statically links with their contributions and sells the
product.

bleah!

Brian Hayward

slouken · December 24, 1999, 6:40pm

I know most of us would be happy to contribute to SDL with the assumption
that Sam owns SDL (including the changes we donate). But that might not
always be the case… It at least leaves a door open for someone to be
greedy when Loki statically links with their contributions and sells the
product.

By the way, Loki is using SDL under the LGPL license, and as such you are
free to ask for a dynamically-linked patch for any of our games. We have
been using statically linked versions for purposes of being able to run on
the most Linux systems possible.

While it would be cool to “own” SDL, I am more than happy to accept all
changes to SDL under the LGPL license. There’s three years of my life
in the project and if I can give it away so people can use it, that
makes me happy. It also means I don’t have to do it all myself.

Happy Holidays!

-Sam Lantinga				(slouken at devolution.com)

Lead Programmer, Loki Entertainment Software–
“Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature”
– Rich Kulawiec

hayward_at_slothmud · December 24, 1999, 7:00pm

Sorry, what brought this up was the following:

Section 5 of the GNU LGPL says that any program that statically links to a
LGPL library is considered a “derivative work” of the library.

I pulled the following paragraph from section 5 of the LGPL:

However, linking a “work that uses the Library” with the Library creates
an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it contains
portions of the Library), rather than a “work that uses the
library”. The executable is therefore covered by this License. Section 6
states terms for distribution of such executables.

A work that just “uses the library” (e.g. dynamically linking to it) may
be released under the terms of your choice. But a work that "includes"
the library (statically), is also affected by the LGPL.

There are lots of details within section 5 and 6. Check them out.–
Brian

By the way, Loki is using SDL under the LGPL license, and as such you are
free to ask for a dynamically-linked patch for any of our games. We have
been using statically linked versions for purposes of being able to run on
the most Linux systems possible.

While it would be cool to “own” SDL, I am more than happy to accept all
changes to SDL under the LGPL license. There’s three years of my life
in the project and if I can give it away so people can use it, that
makes me happy. It also means I don’t have to do it all myself.

Happy Holidays!

-Sam Lantinga (slouken at devolution.com)

Lead Programmer, Loki Entertainment Software

“Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature”
– Rich Kulawiec

Ryan_Wahle · December 24, 1999, 12:12pm

Yeah, Sam, just go ahead and put the source too all the Loki games in
cvs… Just let us know when your done.

:)On Fri, 24 Dec 1999 hayward at slothmud.org wrote:

Sorry, what brought this up was the following:

Section 5 of the GNU LGPL says that any program that statically links to a
LGPL library is considered a “derivative work” of the library.

I pulled the following paragraph from section 5 of the LGPL:

However, linking a “work that uses the Library” with the Library creates
an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it contains
portions of the Library), rather than a “work that uses the
library”. The executable is therefore covered by this License. Section 6
states terms for distribution of such executables.

A work that just “uses the library” (e.g. dynamically linking to it) may
be released under the terms of your choice. But a work that "includes"
the library (statically), is also affected by the LGPL.

There are lots of details within section 5 and 6. Check them out.

–
Brian

By the way, Loki is using SDL under the LGPL license, and as such you are
free to ask for a dynamically-linked patch for any of our games. We have
been using statically linked versions for purposes of being able to run on
the most Linux systems possible.

While it would be cool to “own” SDL, I am more than happy to accept all
changes to SDL under the LGPL license. There’s three years of my life
in the project and if I can give it away so people can use it, that
makes me happy. It also means I don’t have to do it all myself.

Happy Holidays!

-Sam Lantinga (slouken at devolution.com)

Lead Programmer, Loki Entertainment Software

“Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature”
– Rich Kulawiec