[SDL] about lciense

Michael Benfield leftfist at mac.com
Fri Nov 4 15:17:57 PST 2005


On Nov 4, 2005, at 5:31 PM, Bill Kendrick wrote:
>
> Of course, thinking about it more, I'm beginning to wonder myself if a
> new license is truly necessary.  I can simply release an ARM ".O" file 
> of
> an SDL-using BREW app.
>
> If they have the expensive developer tools, a contract with Qualcomm,
> a proper USB cable, and have had their phone 'test-enabled', they
> "can relink".  If not, I don't think it's my problem.
>
>

Wrong. You selectively quoted the LGPL. The LGPL makes it your problem. 
Also from section 6:

" For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the 
Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for 
reproducing the executable from it. However, as a special exception, 
the materials to be distributed need not include anything that is 
normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major 
components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on 
which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the 
executable."

In other words, you MUST give the end user all tools necessary to link 
your object files, and the only reason that's not commonly done on 
Linux, for example, is because those tools are normally normally 
distributed with Linux systems.

This is one of my biggest issues with the LGPL: almost no one who uses 
it actually understands what it says. You see so many projects online 
go through a similar process: They license their work under the LGPL, 
and then months later realize the LGPL wasn't actually quite what they 
thought it was. I would make a completely anecdotal and unverifiable 
guess that most projects which select the LGPL intend their users to be 
able to statically link without restriction, and don't understand that 
the LGPL forbids that.

- Mike Benfield





More information about the SDL mailing list