[SDL] SDL LGPL violations

[Teunis Peters]

To keep this really straighforeward:

Inclusion of source with a package marked GNU Copyleft (GPL) or Library
GNU Copyleft (LGPL) is not required.
What is required is to make the source readily available for up to three
years.

Modifications to an existing GPL or LGPL must also be available - that's
in the license.

Source does not have to be included in the shipped product - just readily
available (ie: ftp, website, ...)  To require otherwsise would make it
_IMPOSSIBLE_ to develop embedded applications - or just unreasonably
expensive.

So this isn't a violation.
Now if they don't provide links to obtain the source - THAT is a
violation!

note that in this case they only have to provide links for SDL...  their
own code doesn't have to be released unless it either contains GNU code or
is makred GNU...

mind you - IANAL.  But nonetheless this comes from working with GNU
software for >10 years.

Hope this helps.

G'day, eh? :)
	- Teunis

PS: message attached in case of ambiguity...

On 28 Jun 2002, Mikko Rauhala wrote:

> Greetings
>
> It has come to my attention that at least one instance of LGPL violation
> has occured with respect to SDL. I imagine that this kind of violations
> may also be more common, but I haven't bothered to spesifically seek
> more of them out.
>
> The issue is that some projects based on SDL choose to create binary
> distributions that include prebuilt SDL libraries, rather than just
> distributing their own binaries and instructing the people downloading
> them to get the SDL libraries from the SDL homepages, for example. Now
> this in itself of course isn't a license violation, if they'd distribute
> also the appropriate source code for the SDL library. Not all do.
>
> I would, in the interest of keeping (L)GPL licensing matters clear, urge
> the SDL developers to contact people found doing this sort of things and
> ask them to comply with SDL's LGPL license. As the source distribution
> clause is clearly spelled out on the SDL homepage as well, I assume you
> might agree. (The alternative would be to clarify this kind of use as
> acceptable as an exception to the LGPL, but that'd make things
> complicated and lessen the availability of the source code.)
>
> Anyway, the particular offending page that propmpted this mail is at
> <URL:http://teddy.sourceforge.net/>. The Windows binary package contains
> SDL DLL's, but no sources are available from the pages.
>
> Thank you for your attention.
>
> --
> Mikko Rauhala - mjr at iki.fi - <URL:http://www.iki.fi/mjr/>
>               - WTA member - <URL:http://www.transhumanism.org/>
>