[aquaria] SDL2 patches...

[Mathias Panzenböck]

Dito for my tiny patches (if they are even still in there and not made obsolete by rewrites). Do with them as you please.


On 07/23/2013 04:47 PM, Henrik Holst wrote:
> No problem for my small patches either, but I wonder if it's really the license that is the problem since the linkage is the other way around.
>
> I.e a library used by a GPL program cannot be a derivative, it's the program that is the derivative of the library so it's probably more a question of Steam not wanting to distribute open sourced programs since they don't want end users to be able to modify it in order to cheat etc.
>
> /Henrik Holst
>
> Den 23 jul 2013 16:31 skrev "James Le Cuirot" <chewi at aura-online.co.uk <mailto:chewi at aura-online.co.uk>>:
>
>     On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 16:20:31 +0200
>     "False.Genesis" <false.genesis at googlemail.com <mailto:false.genesis at googlemail.com>> wrote:
>
>      > Ahh, the dreaded GPL, always a problem. Then I propose to change the
>      > license from GPL to something less restrictive (MIT?) if this is
>      > somehow possible, as it would change things for the better. Imho
>      > there's no reason to keep these (legal) barriers.
>      > Really, what is the difference between GPL code and patched up
>      > non-GPL code that almost completely resembles the GPL one. Not in a
>      > legal sense of course; legally this is pretty clear even though it
>      > feels a bit stupid.
>      >
>      > Thoughts on this? Is it even still possible at this stage? Is that an
>      > option to consider or is it totally out of question?
>      > I just really think it'll avoid further complications and be better
>      > for everyone, even if it's just to make lawyers happy.
>
>     As one of the contributors mentioned (albeit for a tiny patch), I have
>     no problem with this and agree it would be of more practical benefit.
>
>     Regards,
>     James