Re: dynamic versus statically linked libraries
Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 07:22:17AM -0500, gk4@us.ibm.com wrote:
> > 3) If I have an *PL or private applicaiton that statically links an LGPL
> > library, then it becomes LGPLed. See FSF's
> > http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html section 4.
>
> Not as I understand it. Section 4 refers to distributing the library
> itself, not a derivative work based on it. A statically linked executable
> is such a derivative work, and falls under section 5. When they say
> "A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library,
> but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked
> with it..." they're referring to the source code (ie, the thing that
> can be compiled), not the executable.
>From my understanding section 6 is what covers this situation of static
linking. To me is says that you must distribute your program in a manner
that allows it to be relinked with a derivative of the GPLed library.
==========
Section 6a
Accompany the work with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code for the Library including whatever changes were used in the
work (which must be distributed under Sections 1 and 2 above); and, if
the work is an executable linked with the Library, with the complete
machine-readable "work that uses the Library", as object code and/or
source code, so that the user can modify the Library and then relink to
produce a modified executable containing the modified Library. (It is
understood that the user who changes the contents of definitions files
in the Library will not necessarily be able to recompile the application
to use the modified definitions.)
==========
Cheers
Daniel Bradley.
Reply to: