On 10/28/10, Erik Anderson wrote:
> There is a static component that is linked when linking to dynamic
> libraries, however that is present mostly to inform the compiler on what the
> ABI is, or how your compiled code is expected to interact with the DLL. It
> is very possible to write a piece of
There is a static component that is linked when linking to dynamic
libraries, however that is present mostly to inform the compiler on what the
ABI is, or how your compiled code is expected to interact with the DLL. It
is very possible to write a piece of code that explicitly loads the library
by
.
From: opensource-dev-boun...@lists.secondlife.com
[mailto:opensource-dev-boun...@lists.secondlife.com] On Behalf Of Carlo Wood
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 11:52 AM
To: Dave Booth
Cc: opensource-dev@lists.secondlife.com
Subject: Re: [opensource-dev] LGPL violation
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 08:27:52AM -0500, Dave Booth wrote:
> On 10/28/2010 06:29, Carlo Wood wrote:
> libmedia_plugin_webkit.{sp,dll,dylib}
>
> Make sure you quote examples of static linking when you're talking about
> static linking :)
Make sure you read carefully what I say and understand it
On 10/28/2010 06:29, Carlo Wood wrote:
libmedia_plugin_webkit.{sp,dll,dylib}
Make sure you quote examples of static linking when you're talking about
static linking :)
Dynamically loaded libraries (that is, after all, what "dll" is an
abbreviation for) are by definition not statically linked. i
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 10:17:01AM -0400, Oz Linden (Scott Lawrence) wrote:
> On 2010-10-23 7:27, Carlo Wood wrote:
> > I am not a lawyer :p, but I think that it is allowed to link an LGPL-ed
> > library statically against a proprietary executable provided you
> > provide the object code or sourc
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 23:38:55 +0200
Altair "Sythos" Memo wrote:
> yu can put in a DLL all the code, LGPL allow you to do, bu you shoudl
> release the LGPL part of code (not the piece yours or under other
> license), you must release the LGPL code of DLL, not all
please... turn on your typonese t
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 10:38:32 -0400
Malachi wrote:
> does this mean that if i move all of my own code over to a dll file
> that is loaded at runtime that i do not have to release the source
> for it?
uhm... both no and yes
yu can put in a DLL all the code, LGPL allow you to do, bu you shoudl
rel
does this mean that if i move all of my own code over to a dll file that
is loaded at runtime that i do not have to release the source for it?
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 10:17:01 -0400, Oz Linden (Scott Lawrence)
wrote:
> On 2010-10-23 7:27, Carlo Wood wrote:
>> I am not a lawyer :p, but I thin
On 2010-10-23 7:27, Carlo Wood wrote:
> I am not a lawyer :p, but I think that it is allowed to link an LGPL-ed
> library statically against a proprietary executable provided you
> provide the object code or source code of the work that uses the library.
Not correct. LGPL code may be linked to
I'm thinking that it may not require full source code if the ABI is
published at least -- the only "static link" that seems involved here is
whatever stub (.a?) is necessary to specify the ABI. That would permit
someone to link to the library with alternate code (or replace the library
with free s
I am not a lawyer :p, but I think that it is allowed to link an LGPL-ed
library statically against a proprietary executable provided you
provide the object code or source code of the work that uses the library.
In other words, it must be possible to make changes to Qt and *relink*.
Translating th
12 matches
Mail list logo
