[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Porting Lua to Windows Mobile Professional 6.5.3
- From: Rob Kendrick <rjek@...>
- Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 14:56:24 +0100
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 09:48:25AM -0400, Thomas Harning Jr. wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Reuben Thomas <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > 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...
> That is the premise of LGPL, you cannot statically link to it for the
> fact that a user cannot pull in new versions of their own altered
> version of the given LGPL library.
You can static link, as long as you also ship all the object files so
the user can re-static link.
Of course, the licence doesn't say anything about ABI or API changes,
and so it's essentially impossible to abide by the licence as it's
possible that a newer version of the library won't link to it.