static linking has *legal* implications:
you cannot just distribute a binary that statically links a GPL-library under
another license (eg the dwtfyw license).
For the sake of clarity, the same is also true for dynamic linking!
IOhannes knows this, of course, I just figured his comment could've
accidentally left some people with the impression that it's ok to
dynamically link a GPL library to a permissively (or even commerically)
licensed project.
Now, libfluidsynth is actually LGPL v2 licensed. The LGPL has an
exception which allows to link a LGPL library to a permissively (or
commercially) licensed project. Many people seem to think that LGPL only
allows for dynamic linking, but it's also possible to link statically
under certain (more strict) conditions:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic
***DISCLAIMER***: This is just my understanding of the situation.
Anybody feel free to correct me on this!
Christof
On 06.01.2021 09:52, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
Am 6. Jänner 2021 03:39:00 MEZ schrieb Alexandre Torres Porres
<[email protected]>:
Personally, I strongly prefer static linking for plugins (like Pd
externals).
seems best for me too!
well, apart from bloat (speaking with my system packager hat on), static
linking has *legal* implications:
you cannot just distribute a binary that statically links a GPL-library under
another license (eg the dwtfyw license).
are you prepared for doing your homework here?
mfg.hft.fsl
IOhannes
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
