Re: Porting Lua to Windows Mobile Professional 6.5.3

[Marc Balmer <marc@...>]

Am 02.06.2011 16:28, schrieb Reuben Thomas:
> On 2 June 2011 15:20, Marc Balmer<marc@msys.ch>  wrote:
> > Am 02.06.2011 15:40, schrieb Reuben Thomas:
> > > On 2 June 2011 10:07, Marc Balmer<marc@msys.ch>    wrote:
> > > > LGPL is not acceptable due to the condition that an end user must be
> > > > able to link against newer versions of a library.
> > >
> > > That's a new one on me! Reference? I can't find anything about a
> > > problem like this...
> >
> > Section 4, subsection d, of the LGPL.
> >
> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0-standalone.html
>
> Yes, it's very clear, thanks. But I'm still not clear how this is a problem?

Well, we have to provide object files and documentation on how this has 
to be done.  This means additional work.  But we want to provide our 
users with a single .exe file.

It is the additional work that we fear.  And then there is more:  As you 
may know, some Windows Mobile binaries are signed.  And can only be 
loaded when signed (depending on the security settings of the device). 
Now how does a enduser get a signature on his newly linked file?  This 
whole "allow the user to relink" bullshit just don't work in the 
commercial world, that's why we avoid the hassles from the beginning...