John Hasler wrote: > > The LGPL does not require that you grant your customers access to your > source code when you link to an LGPL library. It merely requires that you > provide your customers with everything they need to relink your program to > a different version of the library. In the case of static linking this > means that you would have to provide object files (not source) for your > program. In the case of dynamic linking you need do nothing special as the > customer already has everything he needs to link to a different version: > all he needs to do is install said different version and load the program.
OK, thanks - this definitely clarifies things and gets me closer to deciding in favor of using a LGPL library (vs. using a proprietary one that has some initial costs but has no strings attached when I distribute my software). The only question that arised from your last reply is in regard to: > ... In the case of dynamic linking you need do nothing special as the > customer already has everything he needs to link to a different version: > all he needs to do is install said different version and load the program. What if the customer decides (on his own) to download a newer version of the library, installs it, then realizes that it doesn't work for some compatibility reasons? Isn't he going to come to me and demand that I "solve all these compatibility issues or else be accused of violating the LGPL terms"? Thanks, Alex _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
