[IGDA_indies] SDL commercial viability

[Brian Hook]

> Why would licensing considerations for open source software
> packages be inappropriate for this list?  

Poor phrasing -- probably not best discussed on this list, given that 
the parameters of LGPL have been hashed _to death_ elsewhere.  

In other words, why bother having this conversation when I'm pretty 
confident Google will answer it?

I mean, for crying out loud, this is discussed at the SDL Web site:

http://www.libsdl.org/faq.php?action=listentries&category=8

http://www.libsdl.org/license.php

"To comply with this license, you must give prominent notice that you 
use the Simple DirectMedia Layer library, and that it is included 
under the terms of the LGPL license. You must include a copy of the 
LGPL license.
You must also do one of the following:

   1. Include the source code for the version of SDL that you link 
with, as well as the full source or object code to your application so 
that the user can relink your application,
      or
   2. Include a written offer, valid for at least three years, to 
provide the materials listed in option 1, charging no more than the 
cost of providing this distribution,
      or
   3. Make the materials listed in option 1 available from the same 
place that your application is available. 

The most common way to comply with the license is to dynamically link 
with SDL, and then include the SDL source code and appropriate notices 
with your application."


Brian