Static linking considered harmful

[Axel Thimm]

On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 03:05:27PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> > > 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.

> No, the difference is that the vendor can include only object code;
> source code is not required.  The GPL makes no mention of linking
> (static or dynamic).

Ah, OK, I had missed the and/or in your statement above. In that case
we agree, the LGPL doesn't require source code. And what I learned is
that it requires you to ship object code, not only the final
executable. I wonder how many ISVs really do that. Or whether they
argue that the statically build exectuable can be dismantled with
binutils.

> I really suggest you read the license; you have a copy (or maybe more
> than one) on your system.  It is pretty straight forward.

OK, I admit, you were right and I need to learn to read. :)
-- 
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/20061124/083a0d2c/attachment.sig>