I guess I confused SDL_gfx with another package we were looking at,
where there had been a license change from earlier versions. I should
have looked first. I am glad to see I was wrong.
Lenard
Brian Fisher wrote:
Um... isn't SDL_gfx LGPL?
at least, this page says it is:
http://www.ferzkopp
On, Fri Jun 27, 2008, Brian Fisher wrote:
> Um... isn't SDL_gfx LGPL?
>
> at least, this page says it is:
> http://www.ferzkopp.net/joomla/content/view/19/14/
Yes, it is. LGPL 2.1 (version 2.0.17 verified).
>
> ... also, isn't pygame.draw made from copies of an old version of SDL_gfx?
> Wouldn
Um... isn't SDL_gfx LGPL?
at least, this page says it is:
http://www.ferzkopp.net/joomla/content/view/19/14/
... also, isn't pygame.draw made from copies of an old version of SDL_gfx?
Wouldn't it be natural to adapt this to just be an expanded pygame.draw?
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Lenard
Optional on Unix, yes, where SDL_gfx would be downloaded separately from
Pygame. On Windows the dependencies are included in the Pygame binary.
SDL_gfx would be specially built to be compatible with Pythons 2.4, 2.5
and up. So the SDL_gfx license needs to be compatible with Pygame's in
this cas
I don't see why there would be issues. It would be optional...
It wraps 2.0.15.
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Lenard Lindstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Weren't there licensing issues. Which version of SDL_gfx does the new module
> wrap? Otherwise I say "awesome!" as well.
>
> Lenard
>
>
>
Weren't there licensing issues. Which version of SDL_gfx does the new
module wrap? Otherwise I say "awesome!" as well.
Lenard
René Dudfield wrote:
awesome!
I haven't seen this before... Maybe the other email didn't make it to
the mailing list?
Can you please resend the patch?
cheers,
On
awesome!
I haven't seen this before... Maybe the other email didn't make it to
the mailing list?
Can you please resend the patch?
cheers,
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Forrest Voight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any interest in this? Shapes with alpha blending would be very nice
> for simp
