[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Porting Lua to Windows Mobile Professional 6.5.3
- From: Marc Balmer <marc@...>
- Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 16:42:03 +0200
Am 02.06.2011 16:28, schrieb Reuben Thomas:
On 2 June 2011 15:20, Marc Balmer<firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Am 02.06.2011 15:40, schrieb Reuben Thomas:
On 2 June 2011 10:07, Marc Balmer<email@example.com> 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.
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...