Static linking considered harmful

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, Ulrich Drepper <drepper at redhat.com> said:
> Chris Adams wrote:
> >The LGPL doesn't talk about different versions; it only requires
> >relinking with modified copies of the same version that maintain
> >interface compatibility.
> 
> That's your interpretation and it makes no sense.  Relinking with the 
> same version means no change at all.  Change always has to be taken into 
> account and then the internal ABI might change.

Again, I suggest you go read the license.  It isn't my interpretation;
the words are straight out of the LGPL, section 6.

First of all, 6a includes:
    ... 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.)

Then 6b, talking about shared libraries, says:

    ... (2) will operate properly with a modified version of the
    library, if the user installs one, as long as the modified version
    is interface-compatible with the version that the work was made
    with.

There is nothing in there about different releases of the library used;
only modified copies of the version used originally.  Interface
compatibility is specifically mentioned as the user's problem, not the
vendor's.

-- 
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.