[SDL] I have some animated GIF code, can I...

[Doug]

>Please read the LGPL closely, and if you have questions, there should be
>tons of information on it on the web, or it shouldn't be too off-topic to
>ask specific "is it ok if I...?" questions here, I think.

It can be difficult to fully understand the LGPL, let alone any legal 
document.  I think only lawyers can fully understand them.  :P

I'm NOT trying to get around the LGPL - I'm trying to comply with it 100%. 
 I have some derived code that could possibly benefit the SDL community, 
but according to the LGPL I can only release my code as a library - it 
seems to indicate that I can't just release a .c and .h file with the 
sample code that was derived from the image library.

Also, the LGPL sometimes seems contradictory.  Case-in-point:

   "5. A program that contains no derivative of any portion of
   the Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being
   compiled or *linked* with it, is called a "work that uses the
   Library". ..."

   "However, *linking* a "work that uses the Library" with the
   Library creates an executable that is a derivative of the
   Library (because it contains portions of the Library), rather
   than a "work that uses the library". ..."

Notice the work *linking*.  In the first clause it says one can link 
non-derived work with the library and be considered "work that uses the 
library".  In the second clause it then seems to indicate that linking 
non-derived work with the library now creates a work that is a derived 
work.  I suspect that the second clause is INTENDED to mean STATICALLY 
link.  But it doesn't say that.  The LGPL is a legal document, so it 
should not contain clauses that appear to condradict each other.

If anyone can clarify the second clause, that would be helpful.

I would like to release my "derived work" animated GIF source code.  I 
don't have a library - just a .h and .c file.  I'm not now certain (even 
after reading the LGPL) if I can just release the source code as-is 
because, strictly speaking, it's not a "library" - it's just source code.

Fun with legalese! :P
Doug.