Le jeudi 2 mai 2013 13:28:52, Daniel Glöckner a écrit : > Hi Rune, > > On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 10:37:58AM +0000, [email protected] wrote: > > From my perspective I'd like to skip the additional worry about which > > programs can be linked to which libraries and "how". > > if you are a packager, why do you have to worry about that? > I mean, if you still have the possibility to chose which library to > link to, most of the time the program is already (L)GPL compatible. > And if you always use the shared library, there is never a problem > with LGPL.
By the way, you might be interested in reading http://lwn.net/Articles/548216/ > > > I dislike dynamic linking for technical reasons (too much complexity, > > artificial limitations and side effects, many times for no gain). Then, > > I dislike licenses which force me to use inferior/inappropriate technical > > means. > > Can you elaborate on that? Aside from some people not understanding > how to use SONAMEs (Tegra 2 libjpeg.so binary blob...), I've never had > problems with shared libraries. Off the top of my head I remember three > cases where shared libs were superior: Nicely summarized here: http://www.akkadia.org/drepper/no_static_linking.html Best regards, Thomas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
