[SDL] Dynamically loading SDL dlls

[L-28C]

Why is there a license anyway? It's not like anyone would bootleg SDL or 
make their own renamed version... :/

Andre Krause wrote:
> Jeremy wrote:
>> I mentioned that earlier. I'm not going to play the object file game 
>> either. It's easier to find a library that fits my needs better than 
>> maintain a couple hundred meg zip of object files(and libraries?) from a 
>> large project in the zero chance someone will want to re-link SDL. It's 
>> wasted effort. SDL is great, just not for my needs in this particular 
>> case. On the other hand I'm growing to really like what SFML has to 
>> offer as part of this experimentation with alternatives.
>>
> its a shame that the license of SDL does not allow your scenario.
> 
> i am not into license stuff, but are there any good reasons, not to 
> change/enhance the license in the following way:
> 
> "you might use sdl in commercial projects and you are allowed to link 
> statically, but if you do so, you agree in providing product lifetime patches / 
> new executables on user request and in case of major version jumps of libSDL".
> 
> something like this - that it is fixed in the license to support updates to the 
> project.
> 
> if i would do a commercial application where i want to have closed source, i 
> would do regular bug fixes and publish regular patches anyway - isnt that the 
> core meaning of "commercial support" anyway...