Static linking considered harmful

[Axel Thimm]

On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 02:49:38PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> > > 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.

Sorry, indeed you did.

> As for how the vendor can ensure anything, that is the vendor's
> problem.

No, not legally. If any contract has unfulfillable clauses these get
dropped.

> 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.

Can you quote that in the license, because I think you're quoting the
GPL, not the LGPL.

> 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.

I think that's exactly the difference between GPL and LGPL ...

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20061124/e33f57b9/attachment.sig>