There is no problem using the LGPL.  If someone wants to statically link
your LGPL code into a commercial executable, they are also required to
distribute the unlinked object code so that users can (at their
discretion) link the commercial program with a newer version of the LGPL

The standard binutils have some arguments that allow you to combine a
number of object files into a single larger one, which would make
distribution easier (ie.  The closed source program is distributed with a
single extra .o file).

If this gives the ammount of leniency to closed program writers you wanted
to, then you should probably go with the LGPL.

James Henstridge.


On Sat, 10 Apr 1999, Sergio wrote:

> Hi, I have libraries under the LGPL that hopefully will go
> to Megido (a GPL/LGPL Delphi for GTK/Gnome):
> - my libraries are small (they are small components).
> - there are no practical way other than _statically_ link
>   my libraries
> - I want that my libraries could be used *whatever* the
>   license of the final executable (free, commercial, closed, etc)
> >From LGPL:
> <<However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library
> creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it
> contains portions of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the
> library".  The executable is therefore covered by this License.
> Section 6 states terms for distribution of such executables.>>
> So, I think I have a problem here, no ?
> I don't want to force the executables containing my libraries
> to use a certain license.
> How I can manage this ?
> I must use another license ?
> TIA,
> Sergio
> -- 
> To unsubscribe: mail with "unsubscribe"
> as the Subject.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]