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
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
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