[bf1942] Statically linked version to be dropped--licensing
Ryan C. Gordon
icculus at clutteredmind.org
Tue Aug 5 08:35:51 EDT 2003
> are you saying our backs are covered since users can "relink" by using
> the dynamic version with another library?
Yes. Remember that the original intention was to allow users to swap out
the LGPL'd code with their own patched version, or, say, a different
implementation of the same API. At the time this license was originally
penned, that meant supplying the .o files for your closed source product
so that they could be relinked with different LGPL'd binaries. There was
no such thing as a shared library when the LGPL was written.
Obviously, this is a pain in the butt for both users and developers.
Dynamic linking is the same thing, it's just done automatically. You're
still allowing your machine-readable object files to be relinked with a
different version of the LGPL'd libraries at the user's discretion, but
without the mess.
If that requirement is satisfied, you can also do a statically linked
version, since the users will still have a means via the dynamic version
to relink against a different glibc build at their discretion.
Please DO still check with the lawyers, of course. :)
More information about the Bf1942