[bf1942] Statically linked version to be dropped--licensing

[Andreas Fredriksson]

Ryan,

are you saying our backs are covered since users can "relink" by using
the dynamic version with another library?

If so I see no reason to not include the statically linked version in
the future as well.

For BF it's the other way around--we'd like to supply the dynamic
binary only because it is the most stable under any given platform
just for the reason you point out.

Linking in a c library under unix isn't a very good idea in the first
place but it was the only way I could achieve some degree of
compatibility with older distros.

I'll talk to management and legal here and see if they agree on this
interpretation.

Thanks for the input,
Andreas

-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan C. Gordon
To: bf1942 at icculus.org
Sent: 8/5/2003 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: [bf1942] Statically linked version to be dropped--licensing


> Star Trek Elite Force server as they ship a static and a dynamic
> version. From my reading your in the clear by also shipping the

This is a valid interpretation of the LGPL. Loki used to do this...you
got
both static and dynamic builds, but we didn't want to hear from you if
you
used the dynamic version (i.e. - we needed to supply it, but we didn't
have to support it). The dynamic version, license aside, was really for
people that wanted to replace something like SDL with a version that
supported their hardware better, etc.

For the record, though, we statically linked things like SDL and
ESD...not
glibc. In fact, it's fairly dangerous to statically link glibc for
technical reasons, but you need to dynamically link with the right
version
to not cause problems...the whole thing is a huge mess.

--ryan.