iphone, and releasing object code satisfies LGPL Re: Static building and bundling of SDL.

[René Dudfield]

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
license.


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
of apple.




Section 4. d. 0 says this about object code:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html

4.
  d) Do one of the following:

    * 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
licenses.



Does anyone see a problem with doing this?  Sam?
_______________________________________________
SDL mailing list
SDL@...
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

[Donny Viszneki]

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 1:42 AM, René Dudfield <renesd@...> wrote:
> 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
> licenses.

You can distribute a static binary if dynamic binaries and/or your
source code are also made available. It's not more complicated than
this.

--
http://codebad.com/
_______________________________________________
SDL mailing list
SDL@...
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

[Pierre Phaneuf]

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 1:42 AM, René Dudfield <renesd@...> wrote:

> 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
> of apple.

That's true, I stand corrected. I guess that even dynamic linking
might possibly be okay, since whoever wants to mess with SDL with a
closed source application probably won't be putting it up on the App
Store (but rather install it in "adhoc mode" or something)... The same
logic would apply to other embedded platforms like Nintendo DS, say.

It still is a bit of a pain, because you might not want to make the
object files (or dynamically linked binaries) generally available, it
would involve some infrastructure to allow only authorized people
(those who bought the game) to get them. Or you could do like id
Software did with Quake3 (and possibly their other games), only really
protect the resource file and distribute the binaries willy-nilly.

--
http://pphaneuf.livejournal.com/
_______________________________________________
SDL mailing list
SDL@...
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

[René Dudfield]

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 5:48 AM, Donny Viszneki
<donny.viszneki@...> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 1:42 AM, René Dudfield <renesd@...> wrote:
>> 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
>> licenses.
>
> You can distribute a static binary if dynamic binaries and/or your
> source code are also made available. It's not more complicated than
> this.
>

It says you can distribute one if you make your object code available
so that users can link changed LGPL code.
_______________________________________________
SDL mailing list
SDL@...
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org