[SDL] Has anyone published an SDL 1.3 app on the Mac App Store?
Ryan C. Gordon
icculus at icculus.org
Sun Jul 24 00:09:08 PDT 2011
> LGPL when statically linked requires either source or object files so
> that you can relink another version of the LGPL library. IIRC it was
> only 1.3 which got a licence change as otherwise it would require
> authorisation from all <=1.2.* authors. Unless I have missed this
I'm replying to this late, and the project in question is open source so
it doesn't matter in this case, but to answer the question: 1.3 is under
the zlib license, but 1.2 is still LGPL. We couldn't relicense it
because we can't account for all the code in it. Some of it, like the
Hermes blitters, were dropped in wholesale from an external project,
other parts were written by people that just drifted through. Some
contributors to 1.2 are even dead, and can't authorize a license change.
For 1.3, everything was either ripped out, rewritten, or we got
permission to relicense from the original author.
I don't personally care if someone statically links 1.2, but I don't
speak for anyone else, and I don't even have a complete list of people
that may or may not care.
In such a case: you take at least a small risk in shipping a closed
source program, statically linked to SDL 1.2. The reason for dynamic
linking in the LGPL is so that people can, at their option, replace the
SDL you ship with their own build.
If you're closed source and using SDL 1.2, ship SDL as a shared
library/.dylib/.dll/framework. If you really MUST ship a
statically-linked version, the letter of the license allows you to hand
everyone a pile of object files, so they can relink your app with SDL,
but this seems like a huge pain for everyone.
If you can get away with migrating to SDL 1.3 at this point, you can
statically link THAT, but I understand that's not always a reasonable
More information about the SDL