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