Just wondering if anyone who works for some of the game development
companies has had the chane to port SDL to either PS3 or XB360?
It’s a long shot I know, but I was curious.
Dominique.
http://www.pascalgamedevelopment.com := go on, write a game instead;
Just wondering if anyone who works for some of the game development
companies has had the chane to port SDL to either PS3 or XB360?
If we did, we would be violating NDAs to post the code, or violating the
LGPL since you wouldn’t be able to recompile it without a devkit.
–ryan.
Actually, not LGPL violation. It says you can link to libraries that are
required to compile anything on a system. Anything in the devkit is covered
under that.On Saturday 01 April 2006 14:58, Ryan C. Gordon wrote:
Just wondering if anyone who works for some of the game development
companies has had the chane to port SDL to either PS3 or XB360?If we did, we would be violating NDAs to post the code, or violating the
LGPL since you wouldn’t be able to recompile it without a devkit.
–
Patrick “Diablo-D3” McFarland || @Patrick_McFarland
"Computer games don’t affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids,
we’d all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and
listening to repetitive electronic music." – Kristian Wilson, Nintendo,
Inc, 1989
No, it says:
For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the
Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for
reproducing the executable from it. However, as a special
exception, the materials to be distributed need not include
anything that is normally distributed (in either source or
binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so
on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless
that component itself accompanies the executable.
Since the devkit is not distributed with the normal operating system
for those machines, that would be a LSDL violation.
…unless I’m missing something.On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 11:45:12PM -0500, Patrick McFarland wrote:
On Saturday 01 April 2006 14:58, Ryan C. Gordon wrote:
Just wondering if anyone who works for some of the game development
companies has had the chane to port SDL to either PS3 or XB360?If we did, we would be violating NDAs to post the code, or violating the
LGPL since you wouldn’t be able to recompile it without a devkit.Actually, not LGPL violation. It says you can link to libraries that are
required to compile anything on a system. Anything in the devkit is covered
under that.
–
Steaphan Greene
GPG public key: http://www.cs.binghamton.edu/~sgreene/gpg.key.txt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed…
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: http://lists.libsdl.org/pipermail/sdl-libsdl.org/attachments/20060402/eb9e101d/attachment.pgp
Uhm, that interpretation would rule out pretty much everything,
including some modern Un*x platforms. “Normal” operating systems
don’t include any development tools whatsoever.
Then again, though it seems like whoever wrote that part of the LGPL
considers the development tools to be part of the operating system,
that doesn’t mean that part has to come with the standard
distribution of the OS, nor that it has to be available at no extra
cost…
(I could be missing something too, but AFAIK, using SDL on MS Windows
or Mac OS X, just to name two that normally come without dev tools,
doesn’t violate the LGPL.)
//David Olofson - Programmer, Composer, Open Source Advocate
.------- http://olofson.net - Games, SDL examples -------.
| http://zeespace.net - 2.5D rendering engine |
| http://audiality.org - Music/audio engine |
| http://eel.olofson.net - Real time scripting |
’-- http://www.reologica.se - Rheology instrumentation --'On Sunday 02 April 2006 07:11, Stea Greene wrote:
On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 11:45:12PM -0500, Patrick McFarland wrote:
On Saturday 01 April 2006 14:58, Ryan C. Gordon wrote:
Just wondering if anyone who works for some of the game
development
companies has had the chane to port SDL to either PS3 or
XB360?If we did, we would be violating NDAs to post the code, or
violating the
LGPL since you wouldn’t be able to recompile it without a
devkit.Actually, not LGPL violation. It says you can link to libraries
that are
required to compile anything on a system. Anything in the devkit
is covered under that.No, it says:
For an executable, the required form of the “work that uses the
Library” must include any data and utility programs needed for
reproducing the executable from it. However, as a special
exception, the materials to be distributed need not include
anything that is normally distributed (in either source or
binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so
on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless
that component itself accompanies the executable.Since the devkit is not distributed with the normal operating system
for those machines, that would be a LSDL violation.
No, it says:
For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the executable from it. However, as a special exception, the materials to be distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.Since the devkit is not distributed with the normal operating system
for those machines, that would be a LSDL violation.Uhm, that interpretation would rule out pretty much everything,
including some modern Un*x platforms. “Normal” operating systems
don’t include any development tools whatsoever.Then again, though it seems like whoever wrote that part of the LGPL
considers the development tools to be part of the operating system,
that doesn’t mean that part has to come with the standard
distribution of the OS, nor that it has to be available at no extra
cost…(I could be missing something too, but AFAIK, using SDL on MS Windows
or Mac OS X, just to name two that normally come without dev tools,
doesn’t violate the LGPL.)
Yeah, I would interpret that more loosely and consider that when you can
get all the components you need to build the executable freely online,
they are being made sufficiently available and would comply with this
requirement, even if they are not distributed directly with your program
or the target operating system’s base version.
Since these components are freely available for both MacOS and Windows,
assuming your program can be built using the free versions and are not,
say, Visual C++ X specific, I would say that these operating systems are
not a problem.
Of course, I am not a lawyer and I could be misinterpreting this.On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:01:22AM +0200, David Olofson wrote:
–
Steaphan Greene
GPG public key: http://www.cs.binghamton.edu/~sgreene/gpg.key.txt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed…
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: http://lists.libsdl.org/pipermail/sdl-libsdl.org/attachments/20060402/7f458a26/attachment.pgp
See, everyone is looking at the LGPL rules, and I think the real
problem is twofold (like Ryan said), the NDA’s regarding API’s for the
dev-kits and the LGPL. Without a dev-kit, there is no relinking
possible. It’s possible to get the tools for other os’es (and yes they
do come with Mac OS…on a separate CD, but if you buy a Mac or Mac
OS, you get the tools disk). You cannot get any tools to re-link for
PS3 or Xbox360.
I’m also pretty sure that just having symbols names in a library could
break your NDA…not positive, but I wouldn’t risk it.
CKOOn 4/2/06, Patrick McFarland wrote:
On Saturday 01 April 2006 14:58, Ryan C. Gordon wrote:
Just wondering if anyone who works for some of the game development
companies has had the chane to port SDL to either PS3 or XB360?If we did, we would be violating NDAs to post the code, or violating the
LGPL since you wouldn’t be able to recompile it without a devkit.Actually, not LGPL violation. It says you can link to libraries that are
required to compile anything on a system. Anything in the devkit is covered
under that.
Just wondering if anyone who works for some of the game development
companies has had the chane to port SDL to either PS3 or XB360?If we did, we would be violating NDAs to post the code, or violating the
LGPL since you wouldn’t be able to recompile it without a devkit.Actually, not LGPL violation. It says you can link to libraries that are
required to compile anything on a system. Anything in the devkit is covered
under that.No, it says:
For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the executable from it. However, as a special exception, the materials to be distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.Since the devkit is not distributed with the normal operating system
for those machines, that would be a LSDL violation.
Wow, the LGPL sure is a pain in the hole, huh?> From: Stea Greene
On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 11:45:12PM -0500, Patrick McFarland wrote:
On Saturday 01 April 2006 14:58, Ryan C. Gordon wrote:
That depends on how you look at it. The way I see it, the LGPL (or
better, the GPL) is great, and it’s the proprietary systems that don’t
let their own owners do what they want with them that are the pain.On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 08:43:11AM +1000, Rhythmic Fistman wrote:
Wow, the LGPL sure is a pain in the hole, huh?
–
Steaphan Greene
GPG public key: http://www.cs.binghamton.edu/~sgreene/gpg.key.txt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed…
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: http://lists.libsdl.org/pipermail/sdl-libsdl.org/attachments/20060402/e5223203/attachment.pgp
Yeah, letting companies use LGPL code without giving anything back
would be so much better.
But seriously, heavily closed systems like game consoles pretty much
go against the spirit of open source at every level (licensed
toolkits, NDAs, etc), so I don’t see what’s so wrong with not allowing
them to use open source code.
In short: The LGPL requires its users to 1) give modifications back
and 2) allow end-users to relink. Game consoles allow neither, so no
LGPL code for them. Period.On 4/2/06, Rhythmic Fistman wrote:
Wow, the LGPL sure is a pain in the hole, huh?
–
Hello !
Is there any solution for the future ?
Is it possible to license SDL1.3 under a different one ?
CU
Is there any solution for the future ?
Is it possible to license SDL1.3 under a different one ?
Hopefully not. That would defeat the whole point of the LGPL.On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 02:38:03AM +0200, Torsten Giebl wrote:
–
Steaphan Greene
GPG public key: http://www.cs.binghamton.edu/~sgreene/gpg.key.txt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed…
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: http://lists.libsdl.org/pipermail/sdl-libsdl.org/attachments/20060402/7cd401c2/attachment.pgp
Hello !
I really like OSS, i like the idea of other people can modify it, but
have to give the changes back to the creators, but when a license
gets people stopped from using OSS on some plattforms it should be
changed.
As long as SDL itself continues to be OSS, i have no problem with
other licenses.
CU
I really like OSS, i like the idea of other people can modify it, but
have to give the changes back to the creators, but when a license gets
people stopped from using OSS on some plattforms it should be changed.As long as SDL itself continues to be OSS, i have no problem with
other licenses.
The SDL license isn’t what’s stopping you. The license on those
platforms is. The platforms in question oppose the use of any free
software on them. That is what needs to change, not SDL.On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 03:41:05AM +0200, Torsten Giebl wrote:
–
Steaphan Greene
GPG public key: http://www.cs.binghamton.edu/~sgreene/gpg.key.txt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed…
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: http://lists.libsdl.org/pipermail/sdl-libsdl.org/attachments/20060402/e3213e47/attachment.pgp
Hello !
The SDL license isn’t what’s stopping you. The license on those
platforms is. The platforms in question oppose the use of any free
software on them. That is what needs to change, not SDL.
But the LGPL allows not static linking, even when the LGPL
lib for example SDL continues to be free and OSS.
For me the LGPL lib is in the first place.
When someone uses it in a commer. app,
okay. As long as the lib stays free and open,
it is allright for me. Only when someone merges a changed
SDL with his commer. app, then the coder should provide the modified
parts back to the SDL community.
CU
Hello !
For me the LGPL lib is in the first place.
When someone uses it in a commer. app,
okay. As long as the lib stays free and open, it is allright for me. Only
when someone merges a changed SDL with his commer. app, then the coder
should provide the modified parts back to the SDL community.
For me the coder that uses the lib, should have the
biggest power to use it. If for example on some OSes
it is possible to create the lib in DLL, SO whatever
form, that allows the user to change and update
it themselves, great. But an OS that has not that option,
should not get the coder into trouble.
CU
I really like OSS, i like the idea of other people can modify it, but
have to give the changes back to the creators, but when a license
gets people stopped from using OSS on some plattforms it should be
changed.
Bzzzt! Player number two goes back to Clue Camp. Your statement is equivalent
to saying that since others want to steal from you, you should just leave
your doors unlocked.
Sorry, but I can’t agree. All my software is GPL precisely because I don’t
want greedy thieves to steal my code. Those who license with BSD are in
effect saying “Here’s this code I created. Go ahead and sell it and profit
from what you didn’t create.”
If a platform is licensed such that that platform won’t allow OSS, then that
platform deserves to die a swift death.
My apologies if this comes off as a bit too strident, but I have a personal
bone to pick with “business” and “marketing” people who suck the blood of
those who actually do the work.
I think it’s highly commendable of Sam to provide great software we’re free
to use, but is not free for parasites to abuse.
JeffOn Sunday 02 April 2006 18:41 pm, Torsten Giebl wrote:
Then again, though it seems like whoever wrote that part of the LGPL
considers the development tools to be part of the operating system,
that doesn’t mean that part has to come with the standard
distribution of the OS, nor that it has to be available at no extra
cost…
(I could be missing something too, but AFAIK, using SDL on MS Windows
or Mac OS X, just to name two that normally come without dev tools,
doesn’t violate the LGPL.)
BTW, if you read the SDL license page, you’ll see that this is the
interpretation I take as well.
In any case, if it violates the platform NDA to provide your modifications
to the SDL library to the customers, then it’s a moot point.
-Sam Lantinga, Senior Software Engineer, Blizzard EntertainmentYou know there’s nothing preventing people from selling programs using
GPL’ed
code, right ? You could sell support, or CDs, or a package with
data/media,
etc. Commercial != proprietary.
So, if you for example made a GPL’ed game engine, you could make some media
for it and sell the combined result. Someone else could take your engine
and
do the same, profiting from your work. And their own, of course, nice
media
doesn’t grow on trees. In any case, the GPL isn’t meant to prevent this;
in
fact, if you modified the GPL to prevent this sort of thing, the resulting
license would be incompatible with the GPL.
As an example, the source code of Caravel’s “Deadly Rooms of Death” series
is licensed under the MPL 1.1, but the concept would have worked just as
well
if it was GPL. The second game in the series, “DROD: Journey to Rooted
Hold”,
is shareware. We basically “give away” our code, but sell the data/media.
This works fine. Now, we didn’t take any code from anyone else, but others
could of course use our code, as long as they comply with the license.
(In fact, this already happened.)
Anyway, what license you choose is a matter of freedom. GPL is freedom
only
for those who agree with it, which can be restrictive sometimes. BSD-like
licenses, on the other hand, is freedom for everyone. Both have their
uses.
Sorry, but I can’t agree. All my software is GPL precisely because I
don’t
want greedy thieves to steal my code. Those who license with BSD are in
effect saying “Here’s this code I created. Go ahead and sell it and
profit
from what you didn’t create.”
Hello !
GPL and LGPL is okay. But for libs like SDL it
would be usefull to have a License that allows to
use static linking on some special OSes.
On LGPL there is the need to ask every contributor
if for him it would be okay to use static linking.
Does LPGL allow to change the license without asking
all the contributors as long as the last LGPL version
stays free and OSS ?
In my opinion we will see more of these special OSes
in the future, so the problem gets bigger.
CU