How are we supposed to comply with the LGPL?

[Anteater]

Hi all. I noticed that AGS uses two libraries (not counting the MP3 one which I'm not using) that are licensed under th LGPL. I was wondering, how does one comply with the requirements in this case? As far as I can tell, the runtime libraries are static, making AGS and the runtime engine derivative works of LGPL-licensed content. This would mean that either A) I have to include complete source code (not possible; AGS is closed-source), or B) Give permission for users to freely reverse-engineer/debug my program and re-link it with newer versions of the library. This option is impractical, and may interfere with the license restrictions of other libraries, although I'm not sure. So anyway, how are we supposed to comply with these restrictions? If someone could answer my question, it would be most appreciated.

Also, I'd like to clarify something. I am in no way condemning Chris Jones' decision to release his program without source. It's his software; he can do what he likes with it. What I am bothered by is the LGPL's (and GPL's) virus-like nature. It would not affect the freedom of the users of the libraries at all if the libraries were licensed under a different license such as the zlib/libpng or the BSD.

[scotch]

Most people that use the LGPL would have no issues with statically linking to an unmodified version of their library without releasing source, what difference does it make really? Nobody takes the dll out of a game and uses that, they'll get or build it for themselves. But technically you're right, AGS doesn't comply with the LGPL as far as I can tell. The LGPL static linking situation is a bit weird, it doesn't mean you have to release the entire source actually, but you are required to share the source of the library as well as supply your compiled object code that was linked to make your executable in a form that others could use it (like the .o files, seriously).

The situation for game makers is a bit different considering all you are distributing is the compiled engine packed along with some data files. Your data files presumbly wouldn't be affected by AGS's licensing even if it was entirely GPL.

[Anteater]

The LGPL static linking situation is a bit weird

- I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks that.
Anyway, thank you for replying, you see I'm a bit of a stickler for keeping all the games I make perfectly legal. I don't want to ever "pull a Limbo."

The situation for game makers is a bit different considering all you are distributing is the compiled engine packed along with some data files. Your data files presumbly wouldn't be affected by AGS's licensing even if it was entirely GPL.

I understand this, but there still is a problem then with the game executable itself.

[scotch]

Yeah, there is, I just meant there's not a lot we can do. Maybe CJ will decide to resolve this. The easiest way is probably mailing the authors to ask if they are ok with it.

[Pumaman]

One of the options in the LGPL is that you provide an offer to make available the object files for the application so that somebody with a reasonable need to do so can recompile it against a newer version of the library.

Therefore AGS is in compliance since I would be under an obligation to do so if asked. However I really cannot imagine a situation in which somebody would want to do that, and it hasn't come up yet in the many years of AGS existance.

But if you want to be on the safe side, put a written clause somewhere in your documentation stating that the object files for the application can be obtained for re-linking purposes if the author contacts me through the AGS website.

[Anteater]

Oh, OK, thank you.