SDL and OpenAL are under the LGPL license, not the GPL. There is a big difference. LGPL is short for Lesser General Public License, and allows you to dynamically link your code to the LGPL''ed code without having to release your code under the LGPL (however if you incorporate LGPL''ed code into your project by other means than dynamic linking, then you must release your code under the LGPL as well).

You should really read the license (or at least the ''summary'' on gnu.org) before making such statements.

quote:Original post by Arild Fines
Isn''t the LGPL officially discouraged...?

Yeah, but who in their right mind listens to RMS anyway?

GPL has its uses, as does LGPL. The unfortunate reality RMS and his cohorts simply cannot come to see is that our society is built on commerce, and intellectual property is a resultant necessity. That''s where Open Source and Free Software split: Free Software (in the words of RMS) believes that "software wants to be Free", that free acquisition and unrestricted use (other than not permitting a user/distributor to institute restrictions on others) are morally right. Open Source seeks to find compromise between the practical benefits of peer review ("given enough eyes, all bugs are shallow") and source accessibility and the fiscal motivations of proprietary code. ESR even gives examples of when not to go Open Source in some of his essays.

The result of all this is a plethora of Open Source licenses (the GPL remains the most popular, because that''s what the Linux kernel is under) including the Mozilla Public License, the Sun Community License... even the BSD license qualified (find related information at the Open Source Definition). In other words, there is often a non-GPL substitute that can work for you. OGRE, for example, is currently GPL but the author plans on a shareware-friendly license for licensees who are unwilling or uncomfortable releasing their source.

The money thing, I''ll grant that there are ways to make money, but it''s not easy, you seem to make less, and most importantly for me, none of the business models I''ve seen would work well for the hobbyist moving to small indie, neither of whom have any capital.

"If I don''t like sharing my code,"
This is the truly evil part of the GPL. Remember, these are libraries, not complete programs. I know these licenses are for the developers protection, but what of my work? I can''t use libraries as-is, I have to write additional code. The GPL takes away my rights to this code, to my own work. As a programmer I am horrified at the thought of my work being stolen and stripped bare. I worked on this code, it is my property, and under the license I am forced to give it away. The GPL and all who download hereafter steal my work. It doesn''t matter what kind of property it is, a car, a truck, a house, jewels, code, taking it away is an assault on the sense of self, dignity, being an individual, and having any rights.

quote:> "If I don''t like sharing my code, I''m essentially stuck developing my own libraries."

Yes, and that sounds more than fair. The community and library developers may have put a terrific amount of work into their projects, and they won''t appreciate you making money from their work unless you contribute back.

Very true, but these developers decided to share their work with the community. If they really wanted to make money off of this or to receive any compensation other than appreciation for the work and their talents why put it under the GPL? If they are only after that appreciation, then why not measure the success of their work in dollars made by the people who use their software as well, not just downloads?

In other words, if they put it under GPL they probably didn''t expect any money anyway, so why should they get upset if I make a little money using their software? That''s the point of sharing. You share software in the hopes that others will use it. Why share software if you are going to restrict the way that people can use it? The GPL is effectively saying to users from developers, "Here is a gift, but it''s not really a gift because you can''t do what you want to do with it."

quote:Original post by Anonymous Poster
The GPL takes away my rights to this code, to my own work.

Rubbish. Your "won work" is based on someone else''s work, and the GPL is designed to ensure that you don''t "embrace and extend" the original developer''s intellectual property, then close it off and deny other developers/end users the freedoms you had.

quote:
As a programmer I am horrified at the thought of my work being stolen and stripped bare.

Excuse you?! "Stolen"? The GPL told you beforehand that "if you use this in your own code, you''ll have to make it GPL as well." If you then chose to go ahead, you did so voluntarily - ergo, you gave away your code while maintaining ownership rights (copyright is not muted by the GPL).

quote:
Very true, but these developers decided to share their work with the community. If they really wanted to make money off of this or to receive any compensation other than appreciation for the work and their talents why put it under the GPL?

So that corporations with deep pockets don''t take what was once freely available, add a host of features and then close it off to potential developers. It happened with UNIX. It happened with Microsoft (Kerberos, anyone?)

quote:
Why share software if you are going to restrict the way that people can use it?

Why sell software if you''re going to restrict the way that people can use it? Or perhaps you haven''t actually read an EULA recently.

Your opinions are misinformed and malformed - a true tragedy of misunderstanding and/or ignorance. I suggest you learn about the pertinent issues (particularly intellectual property law, copyright and the history of the Free Software Foudnation/GNU) before you comment further.

amen, many ppl dont understand GPL. it does not force you to use the code. you dont have to use code from GPL''d apps/libraries if you dont like the apsect of having to allow your program to go under GPL. its known before you start using anything that is under GPL that you must release the source to yoru work as well. thus its like you spent time coding stuff and this just became apparent. if this is the case you should learn to read the liscence agreement that comes with the source, since in either case its still copywrite protected and you could not use the code anyway, code does not automagically become public domain unless the auther is dead for at least 50yrs (or is it 75 now?) of that the author EXPLICITLY states its under public domain.

if you feel that you have the right to use GPL code without releasing your source code to anyone who has LEGAL access to the binary (a major point MANY open source ppl seem to neglect as well as others). this basically means that your code branch can be sold, yet only those who purchase the cd with the executable on it can have access to the source. they CANNOT legally distribute the code/executable to hwoever they wish and would be breaking the law just as if you were to keep your code closed source while still using GPL code.

the reason ppl put their code under GPL is that they feel that anyone suing the code should contribute the project since the original authors did so much work on the code themselves. the authors are actually giving up rights by letting you use their code. since after all its copyrighted and you coudl not use the code unless they place it under GPL or make it public domain. the problem with public domain code is that you dont even have to give credit to the original author. furthermore large compaines could use the hardwork done by the open source community without having to "give back to the community". though if the app is not public (ie within the company only) the community would never see the code changes anyway since only ppl within the company have legal access to the executable thus are the only ones legally allowed to use and modify the source code. again, a major thing MANY open source advocates seem to ignore.

though this is all moot, since SDL and OpenAL are both under LGPL since they wish to remain competive with directx on the win32 platform. so you can use the library if you dynamically link it. any changes made to the LGPL library MUST be made public and the source code to those changes MUST be made availible.

also all the things mentioned that are bad about GPL can be applied to ANY liscence, as such are moot. instant open source could become, you must pay royalties to the company producing the library. no income, could become still no income. propogation of poor coding habits? well if you code bad then you are helping in this matter are you not? ANY project in which there are multiple coders, a problem of different styles creeps in. though open source apps tend to be somewhat "messier" due to supporting many platforms. something i think most ppl can live with.

also just because many ppl are working on the code, does not mean their code gets placed in official versions. the main developers decide what code stays or not. ppl submit patches, and then coders working on the project see if they fix what is needed and decide if its done in a good manner. the code could be rejected or rewitten. furthermore, if someone dislikes how things are going with the project, they could branch the project off and make their own version. maybe removing bloated features or maybe even adding some extras that the main developers feel should not be a part of the official original project. this is the true power of GPL, and it is why ppl like it so much. granted it does create some mulitple standards issues, but they are ussually not too bad since ussually at the core they are pretty similar.