|Original post by PnP Bios|
|Original post by TravisWells|
|Original post by Kylotan|
SDL_image is LGPLed. This means you can't practically distribute it as part of a static library.
Unless the library itself is LGPL'd.
but since my is using the zlib license...
I am no lawyer, but you may be able to license your library under the zlib license, as long as you dynamically link to SDL. Users could rip out the code from your library if it was licensed under the zlib license, but they could not rip it from SDL.
I think the point is that you need to allow users to update their version of the library, once you decide to no longer support it. Say this is a 2-month project. You dynamically link to SDL 1.2.8. 2 months from then, SDL 1.2.9 comes out with bug fixes. Users should be allowed to write over the .lib and .dll files in your library, so they can use the mose recent version of SDL (according to the LGPL).
If anyone hear if a lawyer or is studying law, please feel free to correct me. I feel that it is a Bad Idea if you allow users to update a library that your application is linked against. Why? The new version could easily break functionality in your program because it relied on parts of the library that the new versio changed. But you need to compile with the license, so I don't think you have much a choice.