There have been some licensing questions about the implications of the LGPL. Those on this forum date back to 2005 or before. However, I'd like to raise an issue that wasn't covered previously.
Because the cppunit entails template code that gets compiled into one's executables statically (as opposed to dynamic linking), the stipulations of the LGPL in this case are the same as the GPL. Please see the notes on the GNU Standard C++ Library at http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/17_intro/license.html.
This implies that all binaries which include statically-compiled cppunit code are covered by the LGPL or the GPL, and, if distributed, must also have source code made publicly available.
I believe this was not the intent of the authors, since they elected to use the LGPL rather than the GPL. Unfortunately, in this case, I fear that the two licenses are no different in their implications.
In the case of the GNU Standard C++ Library, GNU has worked around this limitation by covering the library under the GPL, with an added runtime exception, as described at the link above.
Would the authors of cppunit consider providing the same exception to cppunit?
Log in to post a comment.
Sign up for the SourceForge newsletter:
You seem to have CSS turned off.
Please don't fill out this field.