When can we see SDL on PS3 or XB360?

SDL Development
21

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.

It would be useful to be able to use SDL and other free software on
those OSes, but it’s the restrictions these OSes that are the problem,
not the [L]GPL.

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 ?

No. That would be “stealing”. :wink:

BSD-style licenses specifically allow this, but free licences do not.

In my opinion we will see more of these special OSes in the future, so
the problem gets bigger.

So, you would suggest we encourage it by making it easier for them to
exist? I think not.

I would rather see SDL become so good that it makes the creators of
these closed systems decide to at least open an exception for free
software so that their systems can be used in a free manner, even if it
is just along side their normal proprietary-only system.

All the above is IMHO, of course.On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 04:23:01PM +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/20060403/95b6c6bc/attachment.pgp

22

You 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.

Of course. I have no problem with that–they aren’t charging for the software
per se, but for distribution, support, etc. What I have a problem with is
someone trying to lock up free software so they can force others to pay for
something they didn’t do any work on. That can’t happen as long as the GPL
allows everyone to obtain the software for free. I’ve no complaint about
others making money for the work of packaging, etc, which is work they do.

IMHO people should make money for the productive work they do, not for
leeching off others, which is all too common in the corporate world.

JeffOn Monday 03 April 2006 07:04 am, Gerry JJ wrote:

23

It would be cool if the game development community could put together
an OSS console that doesn’t get used just for MAME or running games
(GP2X for example http://www.gp2x.com/) for other systems. The other
problem is that there isn’t much marketing/etc behind these systems,
so they don’t get a critical mass to support development.

The reason Sony/MS/Nintendo don’t support open standards is because
first thing that happens is someone is going to use the open
information to create copies (because prices are high). You’ll notice
that the Yaroze system was short lived precisely because of this
reason. The other reason is…it isn’t f-ing broken as far as THEY are
concerned. Now, is this reason enough alone? I don’t know.

The other option would be if Nintendo/MS/Sony/Sega or someone would
open up the entire architecture of a previous system (my vote is on
N64). That could be a lot of fun.

The other problem is that even if we created a new OSS game platform,
would people be willing to not have it just be a PC in a box? The
requirements for filling up that hardware is pretty high. It would be
great to see a lower end machine with enough bells and whistles to be
interesting and fun, but limited enough that folks could actually
stress it…find the limits of the hardware.

Getting off-topic.> I would rather see SDL become so good that it makes the creators of

these closed systems decide to at least open an exception for free
software so that their systems can be used in a free manner, even if it
is just along side their normal proprietary-only system.

24

“Casey O’Donnell” wrote:

It would be cool if the game development community could put together
an OSS console that doesn’t get used just for MAME or running games
…
The reason Sony/MS/Nintendo don’t support open standards is because
first thing that happens is someone is going to use the open
information to create copies (because prices are high).

Most game consoles use a business model of selling the console itself at a loss, then making a profit controling the games. A loss leader. An open console not licensing 3rd party developers for a profit can’t be sold at a loss, putting it at a disadvantage in getting the console sold in the first place.

25

Wow, the LGPL sure is a pain in the hole, huh?

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.

Oh sure, not having any choice is also a pain in the hole too, however
that doesn’t make swapping choices for restrictions (the [L]GPL)
that much better.

Open source is great, but I dislike its use to further a political agenda.
Code is code, libraries are a lingua franca for achieving a certain goal.
Why politicise it? What’s wrong with Free For Any Use? It’s a total bore.> From: Stea Greene

On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 08:43:11AM +1000, Rhythmic Fistman wrote:

26

What’s wrong with Free For Any Use? It’s a total bore.

Just sucks when you make something, then someone else takes your code and
sells it as their own, maybe even building a multi million dollar company
from it :stuck_out_tongue:

But I guess you could chalk that up to “they thought of it before I could”
::shrug::> ----- Original Message -----

From: sdl-bounces+atrix2=cox.net@libsdl.org
[mailto:sdl-bounces+atrix2=cox.net at libsdl.org] On Behalf Of Rhythmic Fistman
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 3:04 PM
To: sdl at libsdl.org
Subject: Re: [SDL] When can we see SDL on PS3 or XB360?

From: Stea Greene

On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 08:43:11AM +1000, Rhythmic Fistman wrote:

Wow, the LGPL sure is a pain in the hole, huh?

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.

Oh sure, not having any choice is also a pain in the hole too, however
that doesn’t make swapping choices for restrictions (the [L]GPL)
that much better.

Open source is great, but I dislike its use to further a political agenda.
Code is code, libraries are a lingua franca for achieving a certain goal.
Why politicise it? What’s wrong with Free For Any Use? It’s a total bore.

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

27

Wow, the LGPL sure is a pain in the hole, huh?

Yeah, letting companies use LGPL code without giving anything back
would be so much better.

People don’t have to be forced to contribute to open source. Either
they contribute their changes back or they’re continually re-applying
their custom patches whenever they update the open source code.
Doing the latter is a real hassle, so contributing back happens
naturally with open source code, regardless of which license, if any,
it uses be it LGPL or not. It’s a way of handing off maintenance
which benefits everyone.

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.

No LGPL code for Them. They should be smarting pretty bad, but…
Them: coding on interesting gaming hardware.
Us: not, but we do have readline.

Ouch.> From: “Simon Roby” <simon.roby at gmail.com>

On 4/2/06, Rhythmic Fistman <@Rhythmic_Fistman> wrote:

28

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.

I wish people would stop politicising useful software. It only makes it
less useful. If you MUST make SDL a vehicle for your political goals,
could you at least choose goals a little more noble of spirit than
that of making all software, everywhere, more like readline?
Humanity could truly benifit from that.

Apologies to the readline author(s). Don’t get me wrong: as a user,
I love readline, but even more than that I love its straightfaced
presentation as a compelling reason to change your app’s license to
the GPL. Please, stop, you’re killing me.

Yea, Torsten, C’MON! Rally around! Take up the cry: Depoliticise our software!> From: Stea Greene

On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 03:41:05AM +0200, Torsten Giebl wrote:

29

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.

Your code’s worth stealing? Worth breaking the law for?
Sounds like hubris to me.

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 code were super-special and only a few godlike beings were able to create
it, then I suppose this would be a serious issue, for those godlike beings.
For me, code is like fermenting sh*t: the less there is of it, the better.
That’s why I like it when source code is freely available. It allows code
re-use and so a reduction in the number lines to worry about. It makes the
big target drawn on your back just that little bit smaller.

If a platform is licensed such that that platform won’t allow OSS, then that
platform deserves to die a swift death.

Crusader or Saracen? You decide.
Personally, “swift death” evokes images of scimitars, so I’d say Saracen.

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.

Unfortunately, promising seems to be way more profitable than doing.
It’s all topsy-turvey.

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.

I think SDL’s great too, but I hesitate to judge its users.

Please excuse the cynicism and latent obnoxiousness, switching from
daylight savings never improves my outlook.

RF> From: Jeff <j_post at pacbell.net>

On Sunday 02 April 2006 18:41 pm, Torsten Giebl wrote:

30

Depoliticising software is itself a political movement, you are adding to
the thing you hate, as well as something the rest of us hate - off topic
spam :P> ----- Original Message -----

From: sdl-bounces+atrix2=cox.net@libsdl.org
[mailto:sdl-bounces+atrix2=cox.net at libsdl.org] On Behalf Of Rhythmic Fistman
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 3:51 PM
To: sdl at libsdl.org
Subject: Re: [SDL] When can we see SDL on PS3 or XB360?

From: Stea Greene

On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 03:41:05AM +0200, Torsten Giebl wrote:

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.

I wish people would stop politicising useful software. It only makes it
less useful. If you MUST make SDL a vehicle for your political goals,
could you at least choose goals a little more noble of spirit than
that of making all software, everywhere, more like readline?
Humanity could truly benifit from that.

Apologies to the readline author(s). Don’t get me wrong: as a user,
I love readline, but even more than that I love its straightfaced
presentation as a compelling reason to change your app’s license to
the GPL. Please, stop, you’re killing me.

Yea, Torsten, C’MON! Rally around! Take up the cry: Depoliticise our
software!

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

31

If you MUST make SDL a vehicle for your political goals,
could you at least choose goals a little more noble of spirit…

Ok, so in your eyes, stealing is more noble than helping. I think I’ve got
the picture now.

JeffOn Monday 03 April 2006 15:50 pm, Rhythmic Fistman wrote:

32

Open source is great, but I dislike its use to further a political agenda.

Unclear On The Concept. It’s not political (unless you view everything as
political). It’s common sense, playing fair, knowing right from wrong,
wanting to help others, etc, etc. And please don’t say “Isn’t that
political?” No, it’s not.

JeffOn Monday 03 April 2006 15:03 pm, Rhythmic Fistman wrote:

33

Your code’s worth stealing? Worth breaking the law for?
Sounds like hubris to me.

It doesn’t matter whether I think my code is worth stealing, it only matters
that those who’ve actually stolen my code think so. Yes, it’s happened–twice
that I know of. One of many reasons all my code is now GPL.

For me, code is like fermenting sh*t: the less there is of it, the
better.

Then don’t worry about it. Go do something else. You’ll be happier, we’ll be
happier.

I think SDL’s great too, but I hesitate to judge its users.

Then don’t.

Please excuse the cynicism and latent obnoxiousness, switching from
daylight savings never improves my outlook.

It never improves anyone’s outlook. This is an excuse?

JeffOn Monday 03 April 2006 16:18 pm, Rhythmic Fistman wrote:

34

Jeez, people!

I think all the licensing stuff is fine, but at the end of the day, none of
us have the ability or the resources to determine if someone has violated a
published license on OSS. GPL, LGPL, whatever…the fact of the matter is,
if you put out something with source code, you should assume someone
somewhere is going to use it in a closed-source application. We may not
like it, but that’s the way it is, and at the end of the day, there’s
nothing that you can do about it. While it’s sad that people can’t be
trusted to obey the license, ultimately if it bothers you that people are
going to do this you just should keep your source closed.

(Note that I am not one to abuse licenses…I use LGPL like SDL per the
license, or commercial toolkits only.)

My 2-cents.

-John> ----- Original Message -----

From: j_post@pacbell.net (Jeff Post)
To: "A list for developers using the SDL library. (includes SDL-announce)"

Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: [SDL] When can we see SDL on PS3 or XB360?

On Monday 03 April 2006 16:18 pm, Rhythmic Fistman wrote:

Your code’s worth stealing? Worth breaking the law for?
Sounds like hubris to me.

It doesn’t matter whether I think my code is worth stealing, it only
matters
that those who’ve actually stolen my code think so. Yes, it’s
happened–twice
that I know of. One of many reasons all my code is now GPL.

For me, code is like fermenting sh*t: the less there is of it, the
better.

Then don’t worry about it. Go do something else. You’ll be happier, we’ll
be
happier.

I think SDL’s great too, but I hesitate to judge its users.

Then don’t.

Please excuse the cynicism and latent obnoxiousness, switching from
daylight savings never improves my outlook.

It never improves anyone’s outlook. This is an excuse?

Jeff

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

35

“Gerry JJ” wrote:

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.

i couldn’t disagree more. GPL is all about protecting the user from
being locked IN into closed source programms, where he is not able to
fix broken code himself - per definition.

the BSD license does not protect anyone. it gives some people all
rights to do arbitrary things to the source code but does not even
force the very same people to give that cripled code to their users.

by no means i want to start a license war here. the very two licenses
can’t really be compared side by side, because they try to achive
completely different things. if someone wants to release his code and
does not care about what happens afterwards with it, BSD might be the
right thing. most people tend to belive that free things should stay
free, though.

clemens

36

Jeff <j_post at pacbell.net> wrote:> On Monday 03 April 2006 07:04 am, Gerry JJ wrote:

You 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.

Of course. I have no problem with that–they aren’t charging for the
software per se, but for distribution, support, etc. What I have a
problem with is someone trying to lock up free software so they can
force others to pay for something they didn’t do any work on. That
can’t happen as long as the GPL allows everyone to obtain the
software for free. I’ve no complaint about others making money for
the work of packaging, etc, which is work they do.

no, you have a slight misunderstanding of the GPL here. the GPL does
not care for what money is exchanged. i could hand you a CD with
linux-2.0.39.tar.gz and cash 100.000 from you with no support or
anything else at all. the GPL only “forces” me to hand you the
linux-2.0.39.tar.gz, if i gave you the vmlinuz i compiled from that
source. no matter if money was involved or not. everybody can sell any
GPL programm for whatever price he wants, as long he gives the source
with it. i think, what you mean is the consequence that nobody will pay
for something, that he can get for “no money” easily. this is true in
practice, but no requirment for the GPL to work, per se. :slight_smile:

clemens

37

Amen…

I thought the original discussion about the consoles themselves
NDA’s/etc was more interesting than the same old tired (L)GPL/BSD/…
licensing discussion which is seriously predictable, dang near
deterministic.On 4/3/06, John Nagle wrote:

Jeez, people!

38

Everyone, the license debate is getting out of hand, please take it off
list if you want to continue the discussion.

Thanks,
–ryan.

39

Sometimes the restriction is a physical one (see: BREW cellphones),
not just a dev-tool one.

I swear, didn’t we already settle this issue a few months ago!?

-bill!On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 11:42:06AM -0400, Stea Greene wrote:

It would be useful to be able to use SDL and other free software on
those OSes, but it’s the restrictions these OSes that are the problem,
not the [L]GPL.

40

See: http://www.newbreedsoftware.com/bill/indrema/

-bill!On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 12:16:03PM -0400, Casey O’Donnell wrote:

It would be cool if the game development community could put together
an OSS console that doesn’t get used just for MAME or running games
(GP2X for example http://www.gp2x.com/) for other systems.