Matthew Mondor <mm_li...@pulsar-zone.net>
writes:
> 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).
^^^^^
user-
> Thanks, this is useful to know.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
A bad day in () is better than a good day in {}.
You know you've been lisping too long when you see a recent picture of George
Lucas and think "Wait, I thought John McCarthy was dead!" -- Dalek_Baldwin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
