Luiji wrote:Good point on LGPL, but I'd consult some other users that have more experience with GPL software. Unless the libs can be modified by the user (i.e. by extracting them), then I think it voids users ability to upgrade the lib, as required by the LGPL (thus one of the reasons it is incompatable with iPhone and Wii).
If the packer is freely distributed, all the end user has to do is repack everything with the updated DLLs. Hum... I think I need to write a regular unpack that unpacks the files and doesn't run the game, despite my impression that no end-user will ever want to upgrade the DLLs.
The LGPL will require the software to be (L)GPL software because by embedding the libraries into your package you are essentially doing the same as compiling a ".a" into a ".exe"/<no extension on Linux>. I'd be more sure, but the LGPL license is so long that I almost passed out while reading it last night. :we need a sleepy emoticon:
Luiji wrote:The LGPL will require the software to be (L)GPL software because by embedding the libraries into your package you are essentially doing the same as compiling a ".a" into a ".exe"/<no extension on Linux>. I'd be more sure, but the LGPL license is so long that I almost passed out while reading it last night. :we need a sleepy emoticon:
I don't think so. LGPL is all about linking, not packaging. Zipping an executable along with LGPL'ed DLLs doesn't require the packer/unpacker to be released under the (L)GPL.
Basically, when you statically link your program with a library, the linker adds the .text section of the library to the .text section of the resulting executable and resolves all calls to the library at link time. When you dynamically link, the linker adds information to the executable so that when the program is run the OS can locate and load the library, add it to the address space of the executable and resolve the call to the library at run time instead of link time.
Packaging on the other hand just packs a bunch of files/folders into one archive. If you pack an executable and forget to pack a required DLL, the packer won't notice and the program will refuse to run after unpackaged.
And I can write in tiny letters too! I'm sorry to jump in out of nowhere, you have the right to treat me as a stranger. It's just that I have little time to do the things I like, like messing around with LÖVE and participating in the forums. LÖVE is a project I keep an eye on for some years now, and it made me decide to stop working on my own 2D engine (which was already working!) because more well tested than my engine would ever be.
Luiji wrote:I have e-mailed GNU requesting clarification as to whether this kind of packing packing and linking have the same legal obligations.
I'm very confident that packing is not a problem. If they answer it will be great, but I submitted a request for clarification to them circa 1998 and never got an reply...
Yeah, they don't reply if the answer is specified in their documentation or is obvious. It said so in the auto-reply along with "You have sent a request for help. It may take awhile to be answered.".
The question I've sent was about mixing LGPL'ed code with dynamic code using a closed source license in the same application. It's, as far as I know, not covered in the LGPL.
Again, I hope you get an answer. It will be great to hear what they have to say about this subject.
If you include code from LGPL code in any application, it is required to be under the LGPL. Even if it's just 20 lines of code, LGPL. The point of LGPL is that if you keep the files separate and statically link them together, you can license your program under anything.
