[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Fwd: Re: Why no Opera?

On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 12:11:24AM +0200, Edward Welbourne wrote:
> Lionel Mamane:
>>> Roberto Sánchez:

>>>> One possible solution would be for Opera to produce a "source"
>>>> package of unlinked binary object files.  This would allow relinking
>>>> against new versions of the libraries (at least in most cases)
>>>> without the need for access to the source.

>>> This is already legally required anyway, assuming you link with LGPL
>>> code: section 6 of LGPL 2.1.

> LGPL 2.1 Section 6.b allows for us to

>     b) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the
>     Library. (...)

> and we use shared linkage for the most part.  Even the opera-static
> package only statically links Qt (...); everything else is
> shared-linked.

> So my understanding of the legal angle is that providing unlinked
> binaries isn't required - please explain why, if you disagree.

This was written under the assumption that you statically-linked to
LGPL libraries, not only Qt. As you now inform me this is not the
case, my statement has no base anymore.


Reply to: