Re: Static linking under win32

[Keresztfalvi Laszlo <kereszt@crossys.com>]

On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 12:46:24PM -0500, Gili wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 09:34:32 -0800, Phil Frisbie, Jr. wrote:
> [...] 
> >This is what the LGPL is all about.
> >
> >> Regards,
> >> Laszlo
> 
> Laszlo,
> 
> 	I think the point of conflict is more about what people
> *percieve* LGPL to be about. FSF keeps on stating things like "you give

Sorry, I was quoted.. twice.. so it's not my mail :))


I've take a short tour on www.fsf.org and found this link clean and short to
overview :)

About the GPL compatible licenses:
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

The first two on the list is what we are talking about. It clearly states
for LGPL: "it permits linking with non-free modules". Follow the special
circumstances link where:

"The GNU Project has two principal licenses to use for libraries. One is the
GNU Library GPL; the other is the ordinary GNU GPL. The choice of license
makes a big difference: using the Library GPL permits use of the library in
proprietary programs; using the ordinary GPL for a library makes it
available only for free programs."

I think this clearly explains what you are scared about. Note that LGPL
changed its full name to Lesser GPL to better reflect that it is not only
for libraries but here it was called Library GPL.


Back to Gili:
> users the right to reverse-engineer your final-product" or "you must
> ship the full source-code of the LGPL component with your
> final-product" if you use LGPL code. I've seen explicit mentions

I think you mix the GPL and LGPL at some point. Providing the source of the
used (linked in) LGPL library just means you make available the LGPL'd lib
which you've used and usually available from its author too.. Not your code!

About the reverse engineering I agree with Ross that this is more about
future linking without access to the source. (Usually a quite ugly hack play
with symbols.. chosen only when nothing else possible :)

Regards,
Laszlo