Chris, Thanks for the info. Did not expect a tarball in Google Drive - I naturally searched for unique filenames which wouldn't have worked in this case.
Thanks, On 10/7/2013 at 1:41 AM, "Chris DiBona" <[email protected]> wrote: > >The lgplv2 is one of the least understiod of the open source >licenses in my >experience. > >Anyhow, from my compliance lead on chromecast: > >Content shell is statically linked. Details on where to get >appropriate source + object files for non-source parts can be >found at >https://code.google.com/p/chromecast-mirrored- >source/source/browse/README?repo=chromium&name=1.2 > On Oct 6, 2013 5:10 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 10/6/2013 at 2:17 PM, "Cole Johnson" ><[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> which is LGPL >> > There's your answer. Nope. >> >> Could you elaborate? A huge chunk of code in third_party/WebKit >is LGPL >> from what I see, >> and I'm no expert but I think you aren't allowed to static link >to LGPL >> code without actually >> [1] releasing the source or all the objects to re-link to be >compliant. >> Correct me if I am wrong. >> >> [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic >> >> >>
