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

[Doug]

>You are kidding, right? Before trying to "understand" the LGPL any 
>further you should first read these:
>http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
>http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html
>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

Hey, thanks for those links, Daniel, they were helpful.  I've done more 
LGPL reading since my last post, and I think I'm starting to "get it".

>I still can't tell if you are either being too sarcastic, or completely 
>missed the point. I'm hoping for the later.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic at all, I'm trying to understand a license 
agreement that I've never dealt with before.  Also, since I've done more 
reading about the LGPL, it appears that there is a lot of heated discussion 
regarding some "linking" issues.  These usually center around issues of 
statically linking, what the FSF says, and what the LGPL is intended for, 
and the "gray" areas in between.

>In short: the user that receives your code must be able to freely 
>replace LGPL library. The preferable way is releasing your code under a 
>free-software license - either by a LGPL extension of the library, or by 
>a loose-coupled code around it.

This is what I now think I understand.  It seems that the LGPL doesn't 
really deal with the "way" I release code (source code, libraries, 
archives, etc), but rather how that code is and must be used (assuming that 
source code is always made available under the LGPL terms).

It seems that as long as the "USE" of the code obeys the LGPL, everything 
is fine.

This all is moot anyways.  I'm making a "derived work" library, based on 
code from the SDL image library.  When released, all sources will be 
available, the LGPL will be included, and the new library can be freely 
replaced out.

Realize that not everyone just "gets" the LGPL instantly, and that there 
are probably plenty of LGPL code out there that is in complete violation of 
the terms of the agreement.  All I'm trying to do is make 100% sure that 
everything I do does not violate the license.

Doug.