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

Re: X and LSB

On Fri, 17 Mar 2000, Jim Knoble wrote:

> På 2000-Mar-17 klokka 11:21:21 +0100 skrivet V man:
> : That is why, if i were a commercial software house, i would consider
> : the possibility to produce a statically linked version of my product.
> Ah, but linking non-GPLed code statically with LGPLed libraries
> violates the license; the LGPL specifically states this.  Something to
> keep in mind.

I don't believe that's the case, as I thought the LGPL was explicitly
created for static linking, b/c in those cases you are including GPL'd
code in your product. 

It's a much harder question in regards to dynamic linking as you aren't
including any GPL'd code per say in your application.  RMS argues that you
can't dynamicly link GPL'd code into your app, if it's not GPL'd but I
have a hard time agreeing with that, just because with dynamic libraries
you can compile with one (say not GPL'd, but that really only provides the
interface to the functions), and then at runtime link to the GPL'd libs.
As it's the user who is doing the linking (or the users system) and these
"binaries" aren't getting distributed to anyone, from a legal point of
view you might not be violating the GPL.

Anyways, I'm not sure how much this has to do with the LSB in how ISV's
"link" their software, just in what they link them to.


Reply to: