On December 25, 2009 at 3:10 PM Luca Abeni wrote:
from a legal point of view, static linking is exactly like dynamic linking.
Dynamic linking assumes that "Application that uses the Library" may do not include any code from the Library. It only loads the Library and calls its functions. LGPL allows do not open the code of the Application. that uses the Library, and provide it only in the executable form, unless Application will fail to work with recompiled Library, built from its source code, which is modified separately from the Application code. In contrast, linking the Library into Application statically, we must provide at least the object code for the Application, because otherwise we'll prevent the usage of recompiled Library with the Application. This is the difference between static and dynamic linking.
If distributing an executable file is ok for you, why isn't it ok to distribute the .o files? They are binaries, as the executable file, and they are as platform dependent as the executable file.
You're considering only a simplest or, I'd say, even trivial case, when executable, being distributed, is the direct result of object file compilation. In real life these are mostly only freeware and open-source software. Real commercial projects usually use more or less complex protection against cracking. Just don't tell me that any crack-protection is a deadend game. The fact is that most of real commercial projects use it in some form. In such case it is just impossible to distribute anything but the specially created executable.
Best regards, Alexander _______________________________________________ libav-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mplayerhq.hu/mailman/listinfo/libav-user
