[SDL] Newer LGPL version

[Sam Lantinga]

>   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 this case, if it were an executable for a GNU/Linux desktop or
> server system, for example, it's fine to not provide _anything_, since
> the tools typically come as part of the platform ...

> ... in the case of something like BREW, where only licensed developers can
> create software, which is then only ever distributed by the wireless carriers,
> the phone does not have compilers/linkers installed :^) ...

Ah, I read it thus:
 "the materials to be distributed need not include anything that is
  normally distributed with the major components"
With the compiler listed as one of the major components of the system,
I assumed that "normally distributed" to mean "normally distributed as
part of the development environment".

For example, you might provide your object files to a Windows user,
but if they don't have a development environment installed it wouldn't
do them any good at all.  However, if they do have a compiler, then
they should be able to use it to relink the files you provide with a
custom version of SDL.lib

If you linked with a proprietary library that prohibited redistribution,
that wasn't normally distributed with the development environment, then
of course you would be unable to comply with the LGPL, and would have to
request alternative licensing terms.

As far as being unable to re-deploy a modified executable, well...
I'm not sure whether that's relevant.  Does anyone know of a legal
precedent?

	-Sam Lantinga, Senior Software Engineer, Blizzard Entertainment