Re: Making commercial software that uses the gtkmm library

[Bernd Robertz <bernd robertz online de>]

Thanks,

I didn´t ask, but now I have more clearly understanding in that
situation. It was really a bit confusing.

Bernd


Am Freitag, den 18.09.2009, 23:18 +0100 schrieb Robert Pearce:
> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, BetancourtLuisMiguel 
> <betancourtluismiguel gmail com> wrote :
> >But I have been reading that, If you use a library under the LGPL, the 
> >problem is in the way you distribute your software: *statically *or 
> >*dynamically.
> 
> Well, that choice certainly affects how the LGPL affects you.
> 
> >*I understand that if I use the static link (when I distribute my 
> >software with the library in my software package, right?) my software 
> >becomes LGPL and I don't want my code to be open source, I want to make 
> >it commercial and close-source code.
> 
> No, that's not right. If you incorporate GPL code in your program then 
> you must make your program GPL, but that is explicitly not true of LGPL. 
> The situation is a little confusing, as the LGPL requires you to allow 
> the customer to use a modified version of the LGPL'd library you've 
> incorporated. So you would have to provide a way for the customer to 
> obtain from you the linkable object files needed to re-link your 
> application with a re-built copy of GTK. But that's not the same as 
> providing source code.
> 
> >In the other hand is the dynamic linking that is, I have to distribute 
> >my software package without the gtkmm library. But the problem is that 
> >I have to say to the customer to download the gtkmm library besides my 
> >software.
> 
> I don't think the LGPL actually requires you not to distribute the gtkmm 
> library. It does require that you admit it's gtkmm and that it's open 
> source and provide your customer with an easy way to get the source. But 
> that may only mean something as simple as including the LGPL text and 
> the GTKmm project URL on your installer CD.
> 
> That said, IANAL.