Blair Campbell wrote: >> Isn't glibc licensed under the Lesser GPL (LGPL) for this very reason? >> > > But a commercial app still cannot _statically_ link to it in that > case; only dynamically. >
Specifically, the GNU LGPL says this in its preamble: > For example, [..] If you link other code with the library, you must > provide complete object files to the recipients, so that they can > relink them with the library after making changes to the library and > recompiling it. And you must show them these terms so they know their > rights. There's more detail later further down in http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html but the above is the sticking point for using libraries covered under the GNU LGPL ... at least, using them IN COMMERCIAL, CLOSED-SOURCE APPLICATIONS. I considered this point when I decided to distribute Cats under the GNU LGPL, then decided that it was okay since the intended target was FreeDOS programmers, and we all provide source code (i.e. users have all they need to recompile from source, if they want.) -jh -- I'm sorry my president's an idiot. I didn't vote for him. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
