From: Warren Young
Date: November 9 2005 6:12pm
Subject: Re: License Question
List-Archive: http://lists.mysql.com/plusplus/5117
Message-Id: <43723C13.2010300@etr-usa.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hardy, Allan wrote:
> 
> Putting all the technical details aside, why did you choose LGPL over
> GPL?

I am not the original author, and neither is MySQL AB.  The original 
author chose it, but he is no longer involved with MySQL++.  The 
original author will not relicense his code, so we are stuck with this 
license.

> It seems that Static linking to LGPL libraries offers no advantages over
> GPL?  

No.  With GPL you have to provide human-readable source code to your 
users.  If you statically link an LGPL library to your program, you only 
have to provide sufficient files to be able to relink the executable; 
unless your program is truly weird, that means object files.

Both of these are spelled out in the licenses themselves.  Have you read 
them lately?

> I mean it doesn't meet the objective of working with proprietary
> software any better.

Why is static linking tied to proprietary applications in your mind? 
What's wrong with dynamic linking?