I dont understand why do you need to provide your binary o file with LGPL at all. What is the merit of it, from the point of creator of library?

2013/7/7 Matthew Mondor <mm_lists@pulsar-zone.net>
On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 11:35:35 +0200
"Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> wrote:

> > Unless I'm mistaken (disclaimer: I'm no lawyer), dynamic linking is
> > fine, as it allows to fulfill the requirement that the user be able to
> > upgrade the LGPL dependencies, while static linking might be
> > problematic...
> You can use a static LGPL library, as long as you provide your
> proprietary .o, and the Makefile to link them with a substituted static
> library (used modified or different implementation).

Thanks, this is useful to know.

This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:

Build for Windows Store.

Ecls-list mailing list

Bc. Peter Vaņu¹anik