Static linking considered harmful

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net> said:
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 02:21:09PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> > Not all the number crunching community statically links.  For example,
> > my father works for NASA, and for his project, they rebuild from source
> > everywhere.  This is a requirement since they run the project on a
> > number of platforms (Linux, Solaris, Windows/Cygwin, Tru64, IRIX).
> 
> You faile dot mention whether your father builds his apps statically
> or dynamically. Any either way, this distribution model is indeed
> Gentoo-like as someone else mentioned in this thread.

They build dynamic binaries.

> > > Which brings yet another argument in favour of not disallowing
> > > statically builds: ISVs love to use these in order to have one build
> > > for the whole Linux world.
> > 
> > Unless these vendors include object code suitable for re-linking against
> > a different glibc, they are violating the LGPL if they link against
> > glibc.
> 
> Are you sure? glibc is not GPL, it's LGPL. and how would a vendor in
> 2006 be able to ensure that his binaries can relinked with glibc from
> 2010?

Did you read what I wrote?  I said LGPL, not GPL.  As for how the vendor
can ensure anything, that is the vendor's problem.

The LGPL requires any work statically linked to the library be
distributed with (or with an offer for) the source and/or object code so
that the end-user can modify the library and relink the work.

Any vendor distributing a binary statically linked to glibc (or any
other LGPL library) without including source and/or object code (or an
offer to get source and/or object code) is violating the license.

-- 
Chris Adams <cmadams at hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.