[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
> announcement.

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 
option yet.

--ryan.




More information about the SDL mailing list