Further pursing license compliance, I’ve determined that I can’t use the
stdc++ library, because it is licensed under the GPL and I can’t
distribute an application that links to both a GPL and an LGPL’d library
because it creates an impossible legal situation. I’m using the stlport
library as a replacement ( Highly recommended BTW, it makes compile
times go though the roof, being a template library, but performance and
standards compliance is there. )
That leaves libc6 as the only library I haven’t really looked into. Its
LGPL’d so I plan on doing the same thing with it as the other libraries.
I was curious in particular as to how other commercial linux products
have dealt with this particular library. I have’t seen anyone include
the source to libc6 on either their website or a their software’s
distribution.
A question for Sam I guess: How did Loki deal with the libc6 library
and/or other LGPL’d libraries the software you folks ported relied on?
A question for Sam I guess: How did Loki deal with the libc6 library
and/or other LGPL’d libraries the software you folks ported relied on?
In general we only rely on our own libraries, SDL, and glibc.
glibc is a special case in that we dynamically link with the version on
the system, therefore we don’t have to include any source. I believe
the admonition to providing source code only holds if you ship with the
library that you are linking with. You are free to say “requires XXX,
available at YYY” without worrying about the license (I think) 
See ya!
-Sam Lantinga, Lead Programmer, Loki Entertainment Software
Hi Sam,On Tue, Apr 04, 2000 at 10:12:01PM -0700, Sam Lantinga wrote:
A question for Sam I guess: How did Loki deal with the libc6 library
and/or other LGPL’d libraries the software you folks ported relied on?
In general we only rely on our own libraries, SDL, and glibc.
glibc is a special case in that we dynamically link with the version on
the system, therefore we don’t have to include any source. I believe
the admonition to providing source code only holds if you ship with the
library that you are linking with. You are free to say “requires XXX,
available at YYY” without worrying about the license (I think)
There is a special clause in the GPL (and presumably in the LGPL) about
system libraries. This was necessary for the original writing of free
software, before it made a complete OS.
Also, there is no requirement that you distribute the source with the
binaries, so long as you make available the source on request at the only
cost of providing it.
–
– Michael Samuel <@Michael_Samuel>
If A equals success, then the formula is A = X + Y + Z. X is work. Y
is play. Z is keep your mouth shut.
– Albert Einstein
Can a person make a non-free product with SDL? I refer to free under the
terms of the LGPL. I am doing some work with some people and they want to
at least understand all the options they have.
DaveOn Tue, 4 Apr 2000, Sam Lantinga wrote:
A question for Sam I guess: How did Loki deal with the libc6 library
and/or other LGPL’d libraries the software you folks ported relied on?
In general we only rely on our own libraries, SDL, and glibc.
glibc is a special case in that we dynamically link with the version on
the system, therefore we don’t have to include any source. I believe
the admonition to providing source code only holds if you ship with the
library that you are linking with. You are free to say “requires XXX,
available at YYY” without worrying about the license (I think)
See ya!
-Sam Lantinga, Lead Programmer, Loki Entertainment Software
Jeremy Peterson wrote:
Further pursing license compliance, I’ve determined that I can’t use the
stdc++ library, because it is licensed under the GPL and I can’t
distribute an application that links to both a GPL and an LGPL’d library
because it creates an impossible legal situation. I’m using the stlport
library as a replacement ( Highly recommended BTW, it makes compile
times go though the roof, being a template library, but performance and
standards compliance is there. )
Huh? Doesn’t the stdc++ library has a special allowance for binaries
created with gcc? I think Netscape Communicator is in C++, for instance.
Statically linked.–
Pierre Phaneuf
Systems Exorcist
Can a person make a non-free product with SDL? I refer to free under the
terms of the LGPL. I am doing some work with some people and they want to
at least understand all the options they have.
Absolutely. sigh
Read the licensing page:
http://www.devolution.com/~slouken/SDL/license.html
-Sam Lantinga, Lead Programmer, Loki Entertainment Software
Pierre Phaneuf wrote:
Jeremy Peterson wrote:
Further pursing license compliance, I’ve determined that I can’t use the
stdc++ library, because it is licensed under the GPL and I can’t
distribute an application that links to both a GPL and an LGPL’d library
because it creates an impossible legal situation. I’m using the stlport
library as a replacement ( Highly recommended BTW, it makes compile
times go though the roof, being a template library, but performance and
standards compliance is there. )
Huh? Doesn’t the stdc++ library has a special allowance for binaries
created with gcc? I think Netscape Communicator is in C++, for instance.
Statically linked.
–
Pierre Phaneuf
Systems Exorcist
I’ve looked into that and you are correct. There is a special exception:
As a special exception, if you link this library with files compiled with GCC
to produce an executable, this does not cause the resulting executable to be
covered by the GNU
General Public License. This exception does not however invalidate any other
reasons why the executable file might be covered by the GNU General Public
License.
From the g++ FAQ:
To avoid coming under the influence of the LGPL, you can link with
-liostream' rather than-lg++’ (for version 2.6.x and earlier), or
-lstdc++' now that it is available. In version 2.7.0 all the standard classes are in-lstdc++’; you can do the link
step with c++ instead of g++ to search only the -lstdc++' library and avoid the LGPL'ed code in-lg++’.
Thanks for the info! I’ve been having a few problems using stlport’s new
iostreams library with mingw32, so its great that I can use those particular
portions of stdc++ in particular.
Jeremy Peterson wrote:
you can do the link step with c++ instead of g++ to search only the
-lstdc++' library and avoid the LGPL'ed code in-lg++’.
Ahh, I didn’t about that one though, thanks a lot!–
Pierre Phaneuf
Systems Exorcist