[SDL] nasm compilaton question

Sam Lantinga slouken at devolution.com
Mon Jan 20 20:50:02 PST 2003


On Tuesday 07 January 2003 14:05, mkee at gonzaga.edu wrote:

> To quote a wxWindows distribution:
>  "Most files are distributed under the GNU Library General Public
>   License, version 2, with the special exception that you may create and
>   distribute object code versions built from the source code or modified
>   versions of it (even if these modified versions include code under a
>   different licence), and distribute such binaries under your own
>   terms."

This is not so much an exception as a complete negation of the LGPL. This 
would allow someone to take the LGPL'd code and make it non-free. I like 
SDL's LGPL license because it prevents exactly what you are trying to do 
here. 

> Many add-on libraries by disparate SDL developers exist and are in common 
> use.
I wonder how many of those libraries and addons would exist for you to use if 
SDL had been under a license that does not foster a community where every 
contribution enhances the whole for *all* developers and users in that 
community. 

In addition, this type of thing would ultimately hurt end-users of SDL-based 
products. The LGPL exists to protect a user's right to software even moreso 
than a developer's right. 
As an example, I own the SDL-based linux game Alpha Centauri. It is statically 
linked to SDL. At the time of AC's release, there existed no DirectFB video 
driver in SDL (or any <foo> driver that may be written in the future). So I 
can't play AC on my DirectFB video console, right? Well, because SDL is 
licensed under the LGPL, I have the right to relink AC with a different 
version of SDL. To satisfy this requirement, AC comes with a dynamically 
linked executable as well. So I build a newer version of SDL, complete with 
DirectFB support, and run the dynamically linked version of AC. The LGPL 
insured that the software for which I paid good money still works long after 
the demise of the company which produced that title. If the license change 
you request were to happen, then I would probably have several Gb of software 
that no longer works, since a commercial software producer would have no 
incentive to release relinkable versions of their SDL-based titles.

The SDL library needs to stay LGPL licensed for the good of all developers and 
users of SDL.

BTW, There exists output-to-file drivers for DirectSound, so  statically 
linking SDL into your app won't prevent your sounds from being ripped on the 
Windows platform.

Max Watson <max at blackholesun.com>







More information about the SDL mailing list