|
|
|
|
@ -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
ago%!(EXTRA string=8 years)