On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 6:16 AM, Pierre Phaneuf <pphaneuf@...> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 12:01 PM, casey dunham <casey.dunham@...> wrote:
>> I am looking at extracting these out even more than I have from my current
>> two projects and building the code base into a reusable DLL. I wanted to
>> find out what I am allowed to do as far as statically linking the required
>> SDL libraries into my own DLL along with my codebase, so in future projects
>> I will only have to include a single DLL. I am not going to be selling any
>> of my projects in any way, and they will be distributed with source code
>> either together, or as an optional download.
> That would depend on the license of your own code. If it is LGPL as
> well, this would be okay (and a closed source application that would
> comply with the LGPL for your library would also make it comply with
> SDL's LGPL license as a side-effect).
> You don't really have to embed SDL's source code in your package
> either, you'd just need a slightly creative linker invocation for
> building your DLL.
> Note that it's impossible for a closed source application to use LGPL
> code on the iPhone, hence Sam's new company, Galaxy Gameworks, being
> particularly interesting to some people...
I don't think this is true - it should be possible to release app
store programs on the iphone that satisfy the LGPL license and apples
What about the object code parts of the LGPL? If you release your
object code, then users can relink newer versions of SDL. This
fulfills the LGPL licence requirements and the no dynlib requirement
* 0) Convey the Minimal Corresponding Source under the terms of
this License, and the Corresponding Application Code in a form
suitable for, and under terms that permit, the user to recombine or
relink the Application with a modified version of the Linked Version
to produce a modified Combined Work, in the manner specified by
section 6 of the GNU GPL for conveying Corresponding Source.
It matches the spirit of both licenses because:
- The LGPL wants users to be able to change the LGPL part of the
program if they need to.
- The apple license does not want people to be able to load
different shared libraries.
I'm not a lawyer, but this seems to satisfy the LGPL, and what I've
heard of the apple license -- both in spirit and letter of the