* LGPL question
@ 2009-09-18 22:58 Brian Cole
2009-09-19 1:51 ` John E. Bossom
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Brian Cole @ 2009-09-18 22:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pthreads-win32
There is a debate in our office about the LGPL. We ship all our
applications statically linked, but we are a commercial closed source
entity. Are we allowed to use a statically linked LGPL library like
pthreads-win32? Or are we forced to use it in a shared library
capacity?
Thanks,
Brian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: LGPL question
2009-09-18 22:58 LGPL question Brian Cole
@ 2009-09-19 1:51 ` John E. Bossom
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: John E. Bossom @ 2009-09-19 1:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pthreads-win32
The license terms of the LGPL revert to GPL in the event that the
library is distributed in a static form. GPL is "viral" in nature,
compelling you to
release your own source as well.
Quoting Brian Cole <coleb2@gmail.com>:
> There is a debate in our office about the LGPL. We ship all our
> applications statically linked, but we are a commercial closed source
> entity. Are we allowed to use a statically linked LGPL library like
> pthreads-win32? Or are we forced to use it in a shared library
> capacity?
>
> Thanks,
> Brian
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-09-19 1:51 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-09-18 22:58 LGPL question Brian Cole
2009-09-19 1:51 ` John E. Bossom
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).