On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 7:06 AM, renoX 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
