On 06.08.2015 14:48, Edward Ned Harvey (mono) wrote:
From: mono-list-boun...@lists.ximian.com [mailto:mono-list-
boun...@lists.ximian.com] On Behalf Of Robert Jordan
On 05.08.2015 18:40, Andres G. Aragoneses wrote:
I hope you've considered the licensing implications. In particular,
if you distribute the mono runtime with an application, your
application will need to be GPL.
The runtime is LGPL.
But AFAIU when you use mkbundle you're not "l"inking anymore, you're
joining everything together in one executable. So then the result must
be LGPL as well.
Only if mkbundle's --static option is used. Otherwise (w/out --static),
the bundled app is still dynamically loading the LGPLed runtime
(libmono*.so) => the license of the bundled app does not need
to be LGPL compatible.
This is emphatically a lawyer question. Are you a lawyer?
Which question? No one was asking for legal advice.
The legal implication of static linking files is a fuzzy one - What if you're
not static linked but then your application gets distributed in a zip file or
some other package that joins them all into a single file? What if that package
file is self-executable? Very fuzzy.
I was solely talking about mkbundle's output. Other distribution
methods, like (self-extracting) archives that might by applied
after mkbundle, were not subject of the discussion.
_______________________________________________
Mono-list maillist - Mono-list@lists.ximian.com
http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
