On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 7:06 AM, renoX <[email protected]> wrote: > naryl a écrit : >> >> Don Wrote: >>> >>> Well, since Qt is going to use the lunatic# LGPL license, you have to use >>> a DLL anyway for commercial use. >>> >>> # lunatic because of the prohibition against static linking. I cannot >>> understand why anyone would use such an absolutely moronic license. >> >> LGPL doesn't explicitly prohibits static linking. It serves to ensure that >> the modified library can be replaced by other version at any time. And >> there's a good reason for that. >> >> Obviously you can't replace a library with other version if it's >> statically linked. But nothing prohibits from distributing a product in >> object files. :) > > I disagree: the LGPL is probably the most 'derived' license: because > developers don't like the stupid restriction on static linking they change > it..
Well, there's another reason: the LPGL (at least version 2.1) is not exactly clear on the status of templates. Does instantiating a template create a derived work or not? This is also the reason why Qt Software/Nokia is currently still working on their modification of the GPL. The non-static restriction is probably built in for guaranteeing 'user freedom' with respect to the LGPLed code, but in practice it's a PITA for the user because it requires you to carry around a bunch of DLLs. Oh well :). All hail the Apache 2.0 license ;). Take care, Daniel
