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

Reinder P. Gerritsen reinder at strikerz.net
Tue Aug 5 12:12:24 EDT 2003

Great response Lee! A real elaborate explanation of the situation.

Either tell the man why his interpretation of the LGPL is incorrect, or
save it for someone else. He's neither helped with this, nor are you
being positive to his work.



Certainly hope the responses concerning distributing both shared and
static libs are correct and will help you continuing a statically linked
binary for still some time. I for one am running co-located Slack 8.1,
and I have very little time, so upgrade to a new GCC on my system would
be quite a problem. 

Good luck on this legal issue.


-----Original Message-----
From: Lee Latham [mailto:leeprivate at cgmlarson.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 18:02
To: bf1942 at icculus.org
Subject: Re: [bf1942] Statically linked version to be dropped--licensing


At 08:17 AM 8/5/2003 +0200, you wrote:
>Hi all,
>a discussion on licenses came up here at DICE when another team of 
>developers were evaluating some LGPL libraries.
>It seems we're in violation of the LGPL by distributing a statically 
>linked version of the BF server--the requirements in the LGPL license 
>state that a statically linked program must be distributed with object 
>files to allow for relinking by the end-user.
>As we intepret it, this goes for programs linked with glibc and the 
>standard c++ library as well.
>Since I cannot release object files I'm going to drop the static 
>version starting with the next update. I know this will prevent a whole

>lot of people from running the server, but violating the LGPL license 
>is not an option.
>If anyone has more insight into this it would be most welcome, but it 
>looks like the statically linked version is gone from now on.
>// Andreas

Lee M. Latham
Vice Field Marshall Admiral Imperator Generalissimo of Sales and Support

(muy importante)
+1 (713) 977-4177 x.103
lee at cgmlarson.com


More information about the Bf1942 mailing list