[SDL] possible SDL license terms change?

[Bill Kendrick]

On Sat, Aug 07, 2004 at 01:00:25AM -0400, Drake Wilson wrote:
>   3. Permit all users of said other works to replace the library component
>      only, in a reasonable manner
> 
> which is not compatible with permitting statically-linked-only
> distribution.  Distributing statically-linked binaries along with
> dynamically-linked ones seems like it should be okay, though; I'm not
> sure about that.
> 

The big issue that's been brought up lately (I think in regards to
Symbian OS, or something?) is that in some environments, applications
_must_ be statically linked, and the channel by which the software is
installed makes it impossible for the end user to upgrade the libraries,
regardless as to whether the app is statically or dynamically linked.

Through my new job, I'm familiar with Qualcomm's BREW setup.  It's an API
(libraries for doing junk like drawing, playing MIDI and MP3, setting
timers, and doing menus and input; much like SDL or, I imagine, Qt/GTK+/etc.)

It's also a distribution channel.  It goes like this:

  1. Company produces game
  2. Qualcomm tests & (hopefully) approves
  3. Wireless providers (like Verizon) (hopefully) accept game
  4. Consumers on that carrier notice the game in their "Get It Now!" menu
     and (hopefully) decide to purchase
  5. Game is downloaded over the air
  6. User is billed automatically in their next statement (or something)


Now, if one were to use an LGPL'd library (like SDL) within the app,
since the only way to _produce_ the app is by statically linking [*],
one would need to provide the "object" version, in case the users
("consumers" in steps 4 and 6, above) want to upgrade their library.

But, uh... how do they upgrade?  How do they relink?  They won't have
the proprietary tools needed to build/link the app in the first place,
let alone any MEANS to getting the app ONTO the phone!  :^(

Sucks, but that's how it works, some times.


Now, I'm not arguing that "SDL should just change its license",
since obviously I understand all of the copyright holders involved
would need to agree.  However, it is definitely an _issue_ (or can be),
and I want to help to make sure everyone out there (most of whom are
no doubt coming from the Linux/Windows/Mac worlds) understand.

I should go check the Lua license.  I know it was used in "Defender" on the
PlayStation 2, and obviously there's no way for me to upgrade my copy of
Lua and burn a new disc. ;^)



Have I used enough parenthesis? (I think so ;^) )


-bill!

[*] At least, so far as I know of, in BREW.  Perhaps there's something
    like "ldopen()", but I doubt it.  And even so, I can imagine something
    like this happening elsewhere, even if my BREW example isn't 100%
    accurate :^)