>> No, that is a common misunderstanding.
>>
> But that would hold for nearly any software written for (not embedded)
> Linux, as you need to use the gLibC header files provided and, AFAIK,
> same are LGPL as well.
The problem only applies for static linking, as already outlined by
Jamie Lokier and me, as with dynamic libraries you can always relink
by just replacing the library file in the filesystem.
> Even worse, to update to new header files the end user would need the
> source code and not only the linkable binary object file.
The header problem is known to LGPL authors, so section 6a says also:
(It is understood
that the user who changes the contents of definitions files in the
Library will not necessarily be able to recompile the application
to use the modified definitions.)
But if the headers introduce incompatibilities, the new library can't
be used in place of the previous one, so there is no real problem.
/alessandro
_______________________________________________
uClinux-dev mailing list
uClinux-dev@uclinux.org
http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev
This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org
To unsubscribe see:
http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
