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 <[email protected]>
> On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 11:35:35 +0200
> "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <[email protected]> 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.
> --
> Matt
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
>
> Build for Windows Store.
>
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Ecls-list mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ecls-list
>
--
Bc. Peter Vaňušanik
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
Build for Windows Store.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Ecls-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ecls-list
