GNU LESSER GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2.1, February 1999
Copyright © 1991, 1999 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
[…]On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 11:43:49AM -0700, nbs wrote:
On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 12:18:44PM -0700, Andrew Ford wrote:
Hold on, hold on. I think maybe we’re overlooking the
fact that providing a link to the SDL libraries from
the download page (or project page) could in fact be
said to make the source code available from the same
place that distributes the binaries, wouldn’t you say?
Methinks FSF needs to update LGPL (© 1991) for that newfangled
Interweb Netsplorer stuff that Al Gore created.
–
Joseph Carter Certified free software nut
Libtool shared library portability is only slightly more believable than
perpetual motion machines. Especially on AIX :)."
– David Leimbach
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed…
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 273 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: http://lists.libsdl.org/pipermail/sdl-libsdl.org/attachments/20020629/e7ccc600/attachment.pgp
Interesting. Ok, and I just looked more closely:
$ locate COPYING | grep -i sdl
/home/kendrick/SDL_image-1.2.1/COPYING
I was looking at >SDL_image<'s LGPL. And it’s v.2, from 1991
-bill!On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 01:18:15PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
Methinks FSF needs to update LGPL (© 1991) for that newfangled
Interweb Netsplorer stuff that Al Gore created.
GNU LESSER GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2.1, February 1999
Copyright © 1991, 1999 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
Before people go off and write nasty letters to people,
under LGPL section 3c if they included the SDL.dll from libsdl.org,
you only have to specify the terms under which you got the original
binary lib. So saying the following is all you need to comply:
“SDL.dll and source can be found at http://www.libsdl.org”
Optionally, you can invoke section 3b, which say the following
"Source code for SDL.dll is avaible on CD for $5.00 USD + shipping
upon request from: "
Yes folks you read that right, you can charge the cost of
distribution in a machine readable format, but you must support
this option for 3+ years.
(BTW that charging clause is in the GPL too…)–
David J. Goehrig dave at cthulhu-burger.org
All reports, excluding those of historical fact, may be considered speculative.
- a faceless Compaq disclaimer
Jude wrote:
Bob Pendleton:
Jude wrote:
this would imply we have to make libc source available - i dont think
so,
The LGPL has a specific exemption for code like the kernel and libc.
READ THE DOCUMENT BEFORE YOU COMMENT ON IT.
ok, apologies, bad example - i’ve got better things to do with my time than
read mealy-mouthed licenses.
IMNSHO 90% of the problems with the current state of software in the
world is that most techies and a total disdain for the law. I can’t tell
you how many times I’ve seen people (including myself) get totally
screwed because the didn’t know as much about the law that governed what
they were doing. So, to me, having as good an understanding of the laws
I operate under is as important as understanding the tools I use to
create software.
the point i was trying to make is that you
shouldnt need to re-distribute sources when a link will suffice.
Oh, I agree with you on that point. I was just pointing out what the
license says, not arguing about what it should say.
Bob Pendleton+------------------------------------------+
- Bob Pendleton, an experienced C/C++/Java +
- UNIX/Linux programmer, researcher, and +
- system architect, is seeking full time, +
- consulting, or contract employment. +
- Resume: http://www.jump.net/~bobp +
- Email: @Bob_Pendleton +
±-----------------------------------------+
Has anyone looked at the FSF take on all this?
If you read what the FSF says about situations like this, it basically says
that the LGPL is a copyright, so unless the copyright holders decide to
press you, you’re ok. Sam wrote on libsdl.org that we were free to violate
the LGPL in certain conditions, so I doubt these minor differences are going
to be a problem. And I dont think that there is a big problem if everyone
continues to use SDL in a moral and responsible way. Unless we start
getting cease & desist letters from lawers of Mr. Lantinga I dont think this
issue needs to be stressed as much as it is. (By the way, I personally try
to follow the LGPL to the best of my understanding, if I was contacted by a
copyright holder saying I somehow violated the License I’d remedy the
situation without protest.)> ----- Original Message -----
From: nbs@sonic.net (Bill Kendrick)
Newsgroups: loki.open-source.sdl
To:
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 1:16 AM
Subject: Re: [SDL] SDL LGPL violations
On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 01:18:15PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
Methinks FSF needs to update LGPL (© 1991) for that newfangled
Interweb Netsplorer stuff that Al Gore created.
GNU LESSER GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2.1, February 1999
Copyright © 1991, 1999 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
Interesting. Ok, and I just looked more closely:
$ locate COPYING | grep -i sdl
/home/kendrick/SDL_image-1.2.1/COPYING
I was looking at >SDL_image<'s LGPL. And it’s v.2, from 1991
-bill!