Re: LGPL

[James Henstridge <james daa com au>]

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discretion) link the commercial program with a newer version of the LGPL
code.

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.

--
Email: james@daa.com.au
WWW:   http://www.daa.com.au/~james/


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 gnome-devel-list-request@gnome.org with "unsubscribe"
> as the Subject.
>