Re: dynamic versus statically linked libraries

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@transmeta.com>]

Daniel Bradley wrote:
> 
> gk4@us.ibm.com wrote:
> >
> > There has been some previous discussions regarding statically linking non
> > LSB compliant libraries to an application.   Is that documented anywhere in
> > the LSB or FHS specs?
> 
> Regardless of whether it is or not, I believe an important matter was
> that to avoid tainting itself with GPL an application must only
> dynamically link to a LGPL library.
> 
> I think it was therefore said that in order for an application to not
> GPL itself it should not have to worry about those libraries therefore
> they should be part of LSB.
> 
> In this regard, however, couldn't the application just have as part of
> its package the dynamically linked library?
> 

Yes, it could.  This, obviously, doesn't need to be in the spec,
although perhaps in the rationale -- as far as we are concerned, it's
just a detail how a certain vendor chooses to build their application.

	-hpa