On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 02:06:52PM +0200, Cedric BAIL wrote: > On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Lars Munch<l...@segv.dk> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 02:52:20PM +0200, Cedric BAIL wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Attached is a patch that move all evas module to eina module. The > >> move introduce one new feature, the possibility to build module inside > >> libevas directly leading the way to an all in one binary for an efl > >> application. > > > > This is indeed a very nice feature (which also makes it possible to port > > efl to ecos and rtems :-) but static linking efl can be a little tricky > > license wise, given that some libraries (e.g EINA) are LGPL without any > > exceptions. Sorry for being slightly off topic and maybe even beating a > > dead horse, but have the authors of EINA and other LGPL based libraries > > in efl considered adding a static linking exceptions to the LGPL > > license, like FLTK, mini-xml and many other LGPL based libraries has? > > > > The wording could be something like: > > > > "Static linking of applications to the XYZ library does not constitute a > > derivative work and does not require the author to provide source code > > for the application, use the shared XYZ libraries, or link their > > applications against a user-supplied version of library XYZ." > > I would like to state that this is only relevant for system without > dynamic linking and it make sense in my opinion. So what do people > think of : > > "Static linking of applications to eina library does not constitute a > derivative work on system that does not provide dynamic linking and > does not require the author to provide source code for the > application, use the shared eina libraries or link their applications > against a user-supplied version of library eina".
Just curious: why don't you want to allow static linking on systems that supports dynamic linking? I can see many uses of a static all-in-one binary on for example linux. An example could be a static linked exquisite used in an initrd. > This change to the licence could also be added to elementary. > > > (not sure if inline functions, macros and templates needs to be covered > > as well in the above, but you get my point) > > They are already covered by the LGPL and doesn't make an application > using a LGPL library GPL. > > > Anyway, please consider the above suggestion as this new feature opens > > up for porting efl to some interesting and "more embedded" operating > > systems and adding this exception will IMHO not violate the spirit of > > the LGPL. > > If this change sounds good to every one on this ML, I will contact all > 12 authors of eina and check with them if they agree on this change. Thanks a lot for doing that :-) Lars Munch ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine for externally facing server and web deployment. http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
