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
> 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.