[SDL] LGPL issues

[hayward at slothmud.org]

Provide it in binary form, statically linked.
Include the LGPL License and a README that says they may request from you 
a dynamically linked version with the exact sourcecode to the library used
in your program.  You must make it available in the same manner you made
the original one available.

I believe this is what Loki has done in the past with their games.  Maybe
Sam can clarify if that isn't the case.

Or, put SDL source to the version you use as well as the binary to your
program in the same directory.  Many sites just mirror directories anyway.

Just remember, you must provide a version dynamically linked to SDL 
somehow, because the whole reason behind the LGPL is to allow the end user
to patch or modify the library in case you decide it isn't worth your
time.
--
Brian

>3. I include SDL in binary form only with my game distribution.  According
>to the LGPL, I can do this as long as I place SDL in source form at the same
>location so people who download my game also have the option of downloading
>the SDL source.  This is not a good solution because it forces all download
>sites that carry my game to also carry SDL in source form.
>
>4. I distribute my game as a "work that uses the library" under section 6 of
>the LGPL.  This not only shares the problem with option #3 above, it also
>requires "that the terms [of my license] permit modification of the work for
>the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such
>modifications.  This means that if I require a registration code to unlock
>the full program (as I intend to), the user has the legal right to hack past
>the check for the registration code.
>
>5. I exploit a loophole in section 6 of the LGPL that allows me to create a
>work linked with SDL and grant myself license to distribute it without the
>restrictions of the LGPL.  ("As an exception to the Sections above, you may
>also compile or link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to
>produce a work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work
>under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of
>the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging
>such modifications." - I would be both distributor and cutomer, garnting
>myself a license to do what I will.)  This sounds a bit too clever to be
>legal or ethical.
>
>6. I can see if later versions of the LGPL are more useful. :-(
>
>Any comments?  Is my interpretation of the LGPL flawed?
>
>
>--
>Rainer Deyke (root at rainerdeyke.com)
>Shareware action/role-playing games      -      http://rainerdeyke.com
>"In ihren Reihen zu stehen heisst unter Feinden zu kaempfen" - Abigor
>
>