From: Mike McCarty (jmccarty_at_ssd.usa.alcatel.com)
Date: 2002-03-28 17:01:17
On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Bryan Pope wrote:
> And thusly Stephan Lesch spake:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > for a more practical question, we're planning to sell copies of our
> > adventure game which I'd like to compile using cc65. What's the status of
> > the compiled program if it uses a runtime library which comes with the
> > compiler?
> >
> > I must admit that I'm a bit confused by the copyright section on the
> > webpage... If the original software is GPLed, and Ullrich places
> > his changes and "other executable sources" under the GPL, too, but on the
> > other hand puts the tools he's rewritten under a less restrictive license,
> > what does this mean for a compiled program?
> >
>
> SDL, which is a graphics library for many different OSs is licensed under the
> Lesser GPL. This is taken from their website:
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> Q: Can I use SDL in a commercial application?
>
> A: The simple answer is "Yes", just dynamically link with SDL and
> you're fine.
>
> Full details are available at: http://www.libsdl.org/license.html
The simple answer is "No".
I went and read their full details, and one is absolutely prohibited
from actually linking their product into a program.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Here is a further excerpt from the licensing section:
>
> ----------------------------------------
> The Simple DirectMedia Layer library is currently available under
> the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2 or newer.
> This license allows you to link with the library in such a way that
> users can modify the library and have your application use the new
> version.
This, at least, is correct. But if their library actually becomes a
part of your program, then your program source must also be supplied,
AIUI.
So, if your platform does not support dynamic linking, then this LGPL
code cannot be used on it without the GPL virus attaching itself to your
own code.
This is a deliberate act by the FSF. Their website has deliberate
misstatements of fact. For example one reads at
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lgpl.html:
The licenses for most software are designed to take away your
freedom to share and change it.
This is false. Licenses *grant* permission, they do not *deny*
freedom. A license *cannot* deny anyone any freedom.
By contrast, the GNU General Public Licenses are intended to
guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to
make sure the software is free for all its users.
This is false. They are designed to ensure that commercial/proprietary
developers cannot use their code. They are intended to grant license to
all but commercial/proprietary developers. They are intended to deny
license to commercial/proprietary developers.
Note the difference in meaning between the words "freedom" and
"license". I have freedom to enter my house. You enter my house only by
my permission and license. If I grant you license to enter my house, but
only under certain conditions, I have not denied you any freedom at all.
Mike
--
char *p="char *p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I don't speak for Alcatel <- They make me say that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo_at_musoftware.de with
the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : 2002-03-28 17:01:53 CET