3 ms·
Why not? There's nothing in the BSD license that prevents you from mixing in code. LGPL doesn't care if you link it against BSD code. Just that the LGPL code
by Nokinside 6y ago
Why not?
There's nothing in the BSD license that prevents you from mixing in code. LGPL doesn't care if you link it against BSD code. Just that the LGPL code must stay under LGPL.
- abjKT26nO8 6y agoI was replying to the suggestion that Qt could be released under GPL if its authors wanted to prevent the creative accounting described by OP. Also, LGPL is already problematic, because you cannot link statically with it.
- Nokinside 6y ago> Also, LGPL is already problematic, because you cannot link statically with it. Damn. I just wrote the whole top level comment to explain that you can link statically LGPL code and how to do it with details.
- abjKT26nO8 6y agoThat's just a workaround. Now I need to add *.o files to my deb packages. Or ship source code in deb packages? What is it? Gentoo?
- rcxdude 6y agoYou don't, you just need to provide a way to get them (you can even specify that requests must be sent by post and charge postage for the response on a CD). It's not a 'workaround', it's literally how the license is supposed to work.
- TomasM 6y agohttps://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynami... "If you statically link against an LGPLed library, you must also provide your application in an object (not necessarily source) format, so that a user has the opportunity to modify the library and relink the application."
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]