SDL license change suggestion: wxWindows LPGL

SDL Development
1

I would like to suggest that the SDL license be changed from LPGL to LPGL
with an embedded use / static object code exception. I know this sounds
bizarre, so before you flame me, please see the wxWindows
license: “www.wxwindows.org”.

To quote a wxWindows distribution:
“Most files are distributed under the GNU Library General Public
License, version 2, with the special exception that you may create and
distribute object code versions built from the source code or modified
versions of it (even if these modified versions include code under a
different licence), and distribute such binaries under your own
terms.”

On the SDL licensing page, Sam Lantinga has personally stated that he does
not care if individuals use SDL for embedded use, so why not make this legal?
The wxWindows LPGL embedded license was recently sanctioned by the Open Source
Initiative and should in no way stagnate the growth of SDL or allow
development to be controlled by third parties.

Many add-on libraries by disparate SDL developers exist and are in common
use. If the core library adopted an embedded license, others would surely
follow and developers could avoid the “DLL bloat” that occurs when linkage
must occur with seven or eight DLLs. More importantly, an embedded license
allows developers to implement proper security.

For instance: The game I am developing utilizes SoundFX created by a major
corporation. These SoundFX are distributed in encrypted format along with the
binary of my game. Under American law, I am required to protect these SoundFX
from being unlawfully accessed by the end user. If the end user streams
SoundFX during gameplay I cannot be held liable because of American streaming
laws. If however, the end user recompiles the SDL library my game dynamically
links with to dump soundfx in unencrypted format to the users hard disk, I can
reasonably be sued for damages. The level of encryption I use is
insignificant as the end user still has a backdoor through SDL. While this
remains conceivably possible with static linkage, it is much less likely and
is certainly less obvious.

Static linkage issues is the sole reason I am currently using Allegro. I
have reviewed Allego, SDL, Clanlib, CDX and several other game development
enviroments and SDL is the cleanest I have seen yet. If the DLL linkage issue
was resolved I would become a complete convert. As it stands right now, I
cannot afford to.

To the powers that be: Please look into the wxWindows license and let me
know if you ever decide to allow embedded use.

Regards,
Matt

2

It doesn’t sound like you’re really interested in an embedded exception.
Rather, you just want to be able to static link SDL period. Somehow this
seems a bit off-color to me personally.On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 14:05, mkee at gonzaga.edu wrote:

Static linkage issues is the sole reason I am currently using Allegro. I
have reviewed Allego, SDL, Clanlib, CDX and several other game development
enviroments and SDL is the cleanest I have seen yet. If the DLL linkage issue
was resolved I would become a complete convert. As it stands right now, I
cannot afford to.

3

You keep saying LPGL, but from what I can tell you really mean LGPL.

(This was confused by the statement “… LPGL embedded license was
recently sanctioned by the Open Source Initiative”, which made it sound
like it was, in fact, an entirely new license.)

It would have been simpler to say “add a static linking exception”,
instead of “change the license from LGPL to LGPL with a static linking
exception”. :slight_smile:

(And if you really do mean “LPGL”, I’ve never heard of it …)On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 12:05:18PM -0800, mkee at gonzaga.edu wrote:

I would like to suggest that the SDL license be changed from LPGL to LPGL

–
Glenn Maynard

4

At first glance this looks like a reasonable request and a good solution
to the problem you have outlined. I personally would like to see the
license changed the way you request.

But, on reflection, I have to ask what level of protection is good
enough to allow you to avoid being sued? Can you ever release your game
on an open source OS where the end user could modify the sound driver or
the OS and capture the sound effects through them? Or is that hard
enough to be considered “good enough” protection? Can you release your
game on an OS that supports loadable drivers? An end user could write a
driver shim for Windows (IIRC), insert it in the driver stack, and
capture the data. Is that sufficiently hard that it will keep you from
being sued? How do you know what level of protection is good enough to
keep you from being sued?

Your question bring to light a serious problem. I hope we can find a
solution that encourages the use of SDL and the creation and use of open
source software and operating systems. I would hate to see a solution
that only benefits closed source operating systems.

		Bob PendletonOn Tue, 2003-01-07 at 14:05, mkee at gonzaga.edu wrote:

I would like to suggest that the SDL license be changed from LPGL to LPGL
with an embedded use / static object code exception. I know this sounds
bizarre, so before you flame me, please see the wxWindows
license: “www.wxwindows.org”.

To quote a wxWindows distribution:
“Most files are distributed under the GNU Library General Public
License, version 2, with the special exception that you may create and
distribute object code versions built from the source code or modified
versions of it (even if these modified versions include code under a
different licence), and distribute such binaries under your own
terms.”

On the SDL licensing page, Sam Lantinga has personally stated that he does
not care if individuals use SDL for embedded use, so why not make this legal?
The wxWindows LPGL embedded license was recently sanctioned by the Open Source
Initiative and should in no way stagnate the growth of SDL or allow
development to be controlled by third parties.

–
±-----------------------------------+

5

To quote a wxWindows distribution:
“Most files are distributed under the GNU Library General Public
License, version 2, with the special exception that you may create and
distribute object code versions built from the source code or modified
versions of it (even if these modified versions include code under a
different licence), and distribute such binaries under your own
terms.”

This is not so much an exception as a complete negation of the LGPL. This
would allow someone to take the LGPL’d code and make it non-free. I like
SDL’s LGPL license because it prevents exactly what you are trying to do
here.

Many add-on libraries by disparate SDL developers exist and are in common
use.
I wonder how many of those libraries and addons would exist for you to use if
SDL had been under a license that does not foster a community where every
contribution enhances the whole for all developers and users in that
community.

In addition, this type of thing would ultimately hurt end-users of SDL-based
products. The LGPL exists to protect a user’s right to software even moreso
than a developer’s right.
As an example, I own the SDL-based linux game Alpha Centauri. It is statically
linked to SDL. At the time of AC’s release, there existed no DirectFB video
driver in SDL (or any driver that may be written in the future). So I
can’t play AC on my DirectFB video console, right? Well, because SDL is
licensed under the LGPL, I have the right to relink AC with a different
version of SDL. To satisfy this requirement, AC comes with a dynamically
linked executable as well. So I build a newer version of SDL, complete with
DirectFB support, and run the dynamically linked version of AC. The LGPL
insured that the software for which I paid good money still works long after
the demise of the company which produced that title. If the license change
you request were to happen, then I would probably have several Gb of software
that no longer works, since a commercial software producer would have no
incentive to release relinkable versions of their SDL-based titles.

The SDL library needs to stay LGPL licensed for the good of all developers and
users of SDL.

BTW, There exists output-to-file drivers for DirectSound, so statically
linking SDL into your app won’t prevent your sounds from being ripped on the
Windows platform.

Max Watson <@Max_Watson>On Tuesday 07 January 2003 14:05, mkee at gonzaga.edu wrote:

6

Indeed - I wonder how the wxWindows license is suitably different than a
BSD license. It’s a hell of a lot longer, but the exception basically
makes it essentially identical.On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 02:24:01PM -0600, Shawn wrote:

It doesn’t sound like you’re really interested in an embedded exception.
Rather, you just want to be able to static link SDL period. Somehow this
seems a bit off-color to me personally.

–
Joseph Carter <@Joseph_Carter> A mighty Oak is the result of
^ a nut a nut that held its ground

Granted, Win95’s look wasn’t all that new either - Apple tried to sue
Microsoft for copying the Macintosh UI / trash can icon, until Microsoft
pointed out that Apple got many of its Mac ideas (including the trash can
icon) from Xerox ParcPlace. Xerox is probably still wondering why
everyone is interested in their trash cans.
– Danny Thorpe, Borland Delphi R&R

-------------- 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/20030107/6bcb22d0/attachment.pgp

7

It doesn’t sound like you’re really interested in an embedded exception.
Rather, you just want to be able to static link SDL period. Somehow this
seems a bit off-color to me personally.

Indeed - I wonder how the wxWindows license is suitably different than a
BSD license. It’s a hell of a lot longer, but the exception basically
makes it essentially identical.

–
Joseph Carter A mighty Oak is the result of
^ a nut a nut that held its ground

Granted, Win95’s look wasn’t all that new either - Apple tried to sue
Microsoft for copying the Macintosh UI / trash can icon, until Microsoft
pointed out that Apple got many of its Mac ideas (including the trash can
icon) from Xerox ParcPlace. Xerox is probably still wondering why
everyone is interested in their trash cans.

I don’t usually responed to .sig files… But, IIRC Xerox finally did
try to sue over the appropriation of their ideas. But, it took them so
long that the court kick out the suit. Use it or lose it folks.

Also, I seem to remember that the X consortium DID get a license from
Xerox. The idea being that by do that Xerox couldn’t sue them, and if
Apple or Microsoft sued then (A & MS) would be taking a risk of losing
their rights to their interfaces. So… no one ever sued anyone over X.

	Bob PendletonOn Tue, 2003-01-07 at 20:55, Joseph Carter wrote:

On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 02:24:01PM -0600, Shawn wrote:

    -- Danny Thorpe, Borland Delphi R&R

–
±-----------------------------------+

8

I have a lot of trouble with the use of the word “reasonably” here.

Regards,

DanielOn Tuesday 07 January 2003 21:05, mkee at gonzaga.edu wrote:

If however, the end user recompiles the SDL
library my game dynamically links with to dump soundfx in unencrypted
format to the users hard disk, I can reasonably be sued for damages.

9

Me Too

It’s like saying: It is Ok to sue me because the end user was clever(er)

/Pontus

Daniel Phillips wrote:>On Tuesday 07 January 2003 21:05, mkee at gonzaga.edu wrote:

If however, the end user recompiles the SDL
library my game dynamically links with to dump soundfx in unencrypted
format to the users hard disk, I can reasonably be sued for damages.

I have a lot of trouble with the use of the word “reasonably” here.

Regards,

Daniel

SDL mailing list
SDL at libsdl.org
http://www.libsdl.org/mailman/listinfo/sdl

10

Me Too

It’s like saying: It is Ok to sue me because the end user was clever(er)

/Pontus

Yes, surely if there’s anyone to blame here it’s the person who wants to
copy the sound effects or whatever it is they’re trying to do. It would
be like a record company suing a hi-fi manufacturer because their
equipment permits copying.

Nick

11

They have tried to do this kind of thing before. Nobody bought into it
since clearly it’s not their responsibility how the user uses an otherwise
legal piece of technology.On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 03:52:57PM +0000, Nick Whitelegg wrote:

Yes, surely if there’s anyone to blame here it’s the person who wants to
copy the sound effects or whatever it is they’re trying to do. It would
be like a record company suing a hi-fi manufacturer because their
equipment permits copying.

–
Joseph Carter <@Joseph_Carter> What’re you looking at?

Making one brilliant decision and a whole bunch of mediocre ones isn’t as
good as making a whole bunch of generally smart decisions throughout the
whole process.
– John Carmack

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed…
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: http://lists.libsdl.org/pipermail/sdl-libsdl.org/attachments/20030108/75a33084/attachment.pgp

12

Me Too

It’s like saying: It is Ok to sue me because the end user was clever(er)

/Pontus

Yes, surely if there’s anyone to blame here it’s the person who wants to
copy the sound effects or whatever it is they’re trying to do. It would
be like a record company suing a hi-fi manufacturer because their
equipment permits copying.

Why do you think there were so few dual drive VCRs on the market?
Because the VCR companies were threatened with law suits when they tried
to make them. The argument is that such a device is primarily designed
to violate copyrights.

If you buy two VCRs and use them to make copies, you are responsible for
the copies you make. But if you manufacture a device that makes it easy
to make copies, you may be held responsible for all the illegal copies
made using your device, even if you didn’t use it to make illegal copies
yourself.

Whether that argument will hold up in court depends on the judge, the
law of the country where the trial is held, and the details of the
specific case. In the recent trial of the fellow who wrote DeCSS he was
prosecuted for creating software whose primary purpose was to violate
copyright (like building a dual drive VCR). A Norwegian court didn’t buy
the argument. OTOH, cracking a copy protection scheme is a crime in the
US (DMCA) and the kid would most likely be doing time if he were tried
for the same thing in the US.

Anyway, none of that really matters. I read recently that it costs on
average $100,000 USD to defend your self against a suit in the US. So,
unless you have that kind of money to through around you try very hard
not to be sued. So, the threat of filing a suit is often used by wealthy
companies and individuals to stop all sorts of activities.

IMHO if you sue someone and lose, you should have to pay the person you
sued at least twice what they spent to defend themselves + the amount
you spent to sue them. That would balance things out. But, that is not
the way things are. So, right now small businesses have to be very
careful about who they piss off.

	Bob PendletonOn Wed, 2003-01-08 at 09:52, Nick Whitelegg wrote:

Nick

SDL mailing list
SDL at libsdl.org
http://www.libsdl.org/mailman/listinfo/sdl
–
±-----------------------------------+

13

Bob Pendleton wrote:

Hi.

This is very OT but I had to add my 2 cents on it.

If you buy two VCRs and use them to make copies, you are responsible for
the copies you make. But if you manufacture a device that makes it easy
to make copies, you may be held responsible for all the illegal copies
made using your device, even if you didn’t use it to make illegal copies
yourself.

This is just plain stupid. Handguns are made to hurt people and you
don’t sue the manufacturers. Anyway, I’m not calling you stupid, just
the idea :wink:

IMHO if you sue someone and lose, you should have to pay the person you
sued at least twice what they spent to defend themselves + the amount
you spent to sue them. That would balance things out. But, that is not
the way things are. So, right now small businesses have to be very
careful about who they piss off.

Here in Brazil is that way. If you sue someone and lose you will most
probably have to pay for the other’s part expenses. If can’t afford the
legal costs, the state provides legal advisers. Of course, one can’t
expect to get top-of-the-line lawyers this way but at leats you have
some way of defend yourself.

[]s

Adilson.> On Wed, 2003-01-08 at 09:52, Nick Whitelegg wrote:

14

Bob Pendleton wrote:

Hi.

This is very OT but I had to add my 2 cents on it.

maybe maybe… This IS about the question of changing the SDL license
and why the guy wants it changed. :slight_smile:

If you buy two VCRs and use them to make copies, you are responsible for
the copies you make. But if you manufacture a device that makes it easy
to make copies, you may be held responsible for all the illegal copies
made using your device, even if you didn’t use it to make illegal copies
yourself.

This is just plain stupid. Handguns are made to hurt people and you
don’t sue the manufacturers. Anyway, I’m not calling you stupid, just
the idea :wink:

In the US gun manufacturers ARE being sued for making guns that kill
people. And that is happening even with a constitutionally guaranteed
right to “bear arms”. People are going nuts up here. It is getting
weirder every year.

The key is that in the US the people who own a lot of copyrights also
have a lot of money and they are scared to death of anything that might
even maybe devalue their copyrights.

IMHO if you sue someone and lose, you should have to pay the person you
sued at least twice what they spent to defend themselves + the amount
you spent to sue them. That would balance things out. But, that is not
the way things are. So, right now small businesses have to be very
careful about who they piss off.

Here in Brazil is that way. If you sue someone and lose you will most
probably have to pay for the other’s part expenses. If can’t afford the
legal costs, the state provides legal advisers. Of course, one can’t
expect to get top-of-the-line lawyers this way but at leats you have
some way of defend yourself.

It is nice to know that Brazil is so civilized. The US is not. In the US
you get court a appointed lawyer if you are charged with a crime and can
not afford your own lawyer. But, in civil cases, there is no free ride.
You have to pay the whole cost of defending your self. What that means
is that you almost have to file suit against the other guy for filing a
false suit and hope to collect from them that way.

In the US we use the term SLAPP Strategic Lawsuits Against Public
Participation" to describe the use of law suits to stop people from
participating in political actions. But, they are also used as part of
business strategy. Believe me, I have worked places where part of the
business planning process was a review to see if law suits (valid or
not) could be used to reach business goals. Suing competitors and people
who spoke out in favor of competitors is a real part of doing business
for large corporations.

My last word on this:

After thinking about I think it is a very bad idea to change the license
for SDL. But, Sam should clarify his comment on the web site about not
minding if people statically link SDL. As it is the comment is
confusing. And, even more confusing because as far as I can tell it only
applies to the parts of SDL that Sam wrote.

	Bob PendletonOn Wed, 2003-01-08 at 12:30, Adilson Oliveira wrote:

On Wed, 2003-01-08 at 09:52, Nick Whitelegg wrote:

[]s

Adilson.

SDL mailing list
SDL at libsdl.org
http://www.libsdl.org/mailman/listinfo/sdl
–
±-----------------------------------+

15

On 08 Jan 2003 14:18:20 -0600, “Bob Pendleton” said:

It is nice to know that Brazil is so civilized. The US is not. In the US
you get court a appointed lawyer if you are charged with a crime and can
not afford your own lawyer. But, in civil cases, there is no free ride.
You have to pay the whole cost of defending your self. What that means
is that you almost have to file suit against the other guy for filing a
false suit and hope to collect from them that way.

And they say it’s the greatest country in the world… What a farce.

I think we should all be thankful that Michael Moore exists.

Dave.–
David Slutzkin, BCS (Hons)
Melbourne, Australia
@Dave_Slutzkin

–
http://fastmail.fm - Same, same, but different…

16

The license isn’t changing in the forseeable future.
Please stop discussing this on the list.
Feel free to contact me directly if you want. :slight_smile:

See ya,
-Sam Lantinga, Software Engineer, Blizzard Entertainment