|
|
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
|
|
|
stb
|
|
|
===
|
|
|
|
|
|
-single-file public domain libraries for C/C++ <a name="stb_libs"></a>
|
|
|
+single-file public domain (or MIT licensed) libraries for C/C++ <a name="stb_libs"></a>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most libraries by stb, except: stb_dxt by Fabian "ryg" Giesen, stb_image_resize
|
|
|
by Jorge L. "VinoBS" Rodriguez, and stb_sprintf by Jeff Roberts.
|
|
|
@@ -45,13 +45,18 @@ These libraries are in the public domain (or the equivalent where that is not
|
|
|
possible). You can do anything you want with them. You have no legal obligation
|
|
|
to do anything else, although I appreciate attribution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
+They are also licensed under the MIT open source license, if you have lawyers
|
|
|
+who are unhappy with public domain. Every source file includes an explicit
|
|
|
+dual-license for you to choose from.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
#### <a name="other_libs"></a> Are there other single-file public-domain/open source libraries with minimal dependencies out there?
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Yes.](https://github.com/nothings/single_file_libs)
|
|
|
|
|
|
-#### If I wrap an stb library in a new library, does the new library have to be public domain?
|
|
|
+#### If I wrap an stb library in a new library, does the new library have to be public domain/MIT?
|
|
|
|
|
|
-No.
|
|
|
+No, because it's public domain you can freely relicense it to whatever license your new
|
|
|
+library wants to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Some of these libraries seem redundant to existing open source libraries. Are they better somehow?
|
|
|
|
Sean Barrett