> Am Mittwoch, den 05.07.2006, 18:49 +0200 schrieb Ulrich Eckhardt: >> > I no longer need to know whether it's possible to link dynamically. >> The >> > reason I wanted to know that had something to do with the LGPL license >> > and someone thought we needed to link dynamically or otherwise publish >> > object files or source code files. >> >> That's true. LGPL requires that people are able to relink your >> executable with >> a modified version of the LGPLed code, so either you ship objectfiles or >> use >> dynamic linking. Or, of course, provide the source. > > I was once told that sigc++ had no intent of being such restrictive. I > asked for a more liberal license because such requirements are not > acceptable for my needs. This is why for myself I switched to > MPL/GPL/LGPL triple-license. But I was told that > 1. sigc++ showed their intent clearly on the website. > 2. changing license would be a long-term thing.
Yes, and nothing has changed since then: http://mail.gnome.org/archives/libsigc-list/2006-February/msg00001.html > But now I read that those restrictions DO apply. You didn't read that from a maintainer. You will always hear different opinions from different people on legal questions. As stated in that previous email, at some point we should explicit state this in an exception in the headers, but I haven't got around to it, and nobody has cared enough to write the exception text for us: Murray Cumming [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com _______________________________________________ libsigc-list mailing list libsigc-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/libsigc-list
