[bf1942] BF2 server discussion

Andrew vonNiederhausern avonnied at genetics.utah.edu
Thu Sep 30 18:15:30 EDT 2004

I have to agree..

-----Original Message-----
From: Lee Latham [mailto:leeprivate at cgmlarson.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 2:14 PM
To: bf1942 at icculus.org
Subject: Re: [bf1942] BF2 server discussion

Personally, I was never able to run the dynamically linked version of the 
bf42 server.  I rent my server from a server farm, and they are on an older 
version of RedHat, and it is problematic, IMO, to upgrade remotely without 
a subscription to RedHat's service.

And just upgrading libc is often not an option, there are frequently other 
dependencies as well, so it is a real pain to run dynamically linked 
binaries of lots of different things, not just this server.

I love static linked binaries.  Why torture your users?  This will not make 
Linux work on the desktop.


At 04:00 PM 9/30/2004, you wrote:
>Michael Ressen wrote:
>>#2 should be just fine, and I don't think there's a legal prob there 
>>since the
>>objects are already in distribution.
>Well, there actually are legal problems. Linking to libstdc++ is allowed 
>for non-GPL applications (I think), but bundling with libstdc++ (or any 
>other GPLed library, for that matter) is only allowed for GPLed 
>applications due to the virality of the GPL license.
>This has led to numerous problems in other applications that were already 
>Open Source, but not GPL software, as in PHP versus MySQL (the MySQL 
>client library is GPL, PHP is not -> severe bundling problems) et al.
>AFAIR, that has emerged for the BF1942 linux server too, and I don't 
>recall how it was solved.
>Personally, I'm fine with option #1, since most gameservers already use a 
>fairly new version of libstdc++.

More information about the Bf1942 mailing list