List:MySQL++« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Chris Frey Date:December 17 2010 6:14am
Subject:Re: static library
View as plain text  
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 09:28:48PM -0700, Warren Young wrote:
> On Dec 16, 2010, at 4:06 PM, Chris Frey wrote:
> > If we're just talking about the LGPL, then this part would be false, no?
> Objects are binaries not linked to MySQL++.

I don't understand what you mean.  How does this matter?  The object
files must be included.  True.  And they are not yet linked with MySQL++.
Also true.  But that is just one of the preconditions to distributing
the executable, which _is_ linked to MySQL++.  (LGPLv2.1 section 6a)

> I'm not going to write a legal treatise in a README.

Understood.  But I think it's better to have nothing in the README
than something misleading.

In the end, I believe the C library is the stickler, not MySQL++, and this
may make your statement inadvertently true, depending on the license of the
C library.  But in the meantime, saying that it's illegal to distribute
any static MySQL++ executable, due to limitations of the LGPL, is casting
the LGPL in a bad light, which is not deserved.  The LGPL was written for
just such situations.

- Chris

static libraryKemin Zhou14 Dec
  • Re: static libraryWarren Young14 Dec
    • Re: static libraryKemin Zhou14 Dec
      • Re: static libraryDino Korah14 Dec
      • Re: static libraryWarren Young15 Dec
        • Re: static librarySebastian Salazar15 Dec
          • Re: static libraryKemin Zhou16 Dec
            • Re: static libraryJonathan Wakely16 Dec
            • Re: static libraryChris Morgan16 Dec
            • Re: static libraryunrouted)16 Dec
          • Re: static libraryWarren Young16 Dec
            • Re: static libraryChris Frey16 Dec
              • Re: static libraryWarren Young16 Dec
                • Re: static libraryChris Frey17 Dec
                  • Re: static libraryWarren Young17 Dec
                    • Re: static libraryChris Frey17 Dec
Re: static libraryPeter Thorson14 Dec