5 ms·

IIRC it’s unclear if static linking LGPL is okay, so most people steer clear

by rjeli 6y ago

cycloptic 6y ago
Static linking is okay and is allowed as a derivative work, but you need to ship object files. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#LGPLStaticVsDyn... >(1) 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. This is covered in sections 6 and 6a of the LGPL 2.1.
- kbumsik 6y ago
  So then the OP is a LGPL header-only library, which is always statically compiled in every source. Do we need to do the same thing, and if yes, how we provide an application to allow recompiling?
  - cycloptic 6y ago
    If you can't use the object files to rebuild another version of the program with a modifier version of the library then no that probably wouldn't be compliant. In that case you would probably have to modify the library so it's not inlining every function. (Disclaimer: IANAL)
- DTolm 6y ago
  Hello, I am the author of VkFFT. When I made VkFFT I wanted license to be like this: your project doesn't have to be open-source, but please share your modifications to VkFFT. I think about switching it to MPL 2.0, is this one better for everybody?
  - cycloptic 6y ago
    That would probably do what you want because it applies on a per-file basis and not to the entire program, but make sure you read the MPL FAQ and the fine print before making such a change: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/FAQ/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/FAQ/
  - snovv_crash 6y ago
    Yes, MPLv2 does what you want. Consider that it's also used by Eigen. I strongly advocate for MPLv2 for math style libraries.
  - drran 6y ago
    Goal of LGPL is to protect freedom of developers to modify code of a library (e.g. to improve it, fix bugs, fix incompatibilities, port to new hardware, etc.) shipped as part of proprietary application. This freedom is important for developers of niche OS'es. This protection works, because of hard consequences for proprietary code in case of license violation: proprietary code must be released under GPL then. MPL doesn't protect such developers, but it "forces" contribution of changes back to original code. In reality, it's ignored. Header-only library cannot be compiled as separate library, so requirements of LGPL cannot be met by proprietary code.
  - Seirdy 6y ago
    It might be better to simply switch to the LGPL v3 or later, since that explicitly addresses header libs.

IIRC it’s unclear if static linking LGPL is okay, so most people steer clear

by rjeli 6y ago

IIRC it’s unclear if static linking LGPL is okay, so most people steer clear

Static linking is okay and is allowed as a derivative work, but you need to ship object files. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#LGPLStaticVsDyn... >(1) 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. This is covered in sections 6 and 6a of the LGPL 2.1.

kbumsik 6y ago
So then the OP is a LGPL header-only library, which is always statically compiled in every source. Do we need to do the same thing, and if yes, how we provide an application to allow recompiling?
- cycloptic 6y ago
  If you can't use the object files to rebuild another version of the program with a modifier version of the library then no that probably wouldn't be compliant. In that case you would probably have to modify the library so it's not inlining every function. (Disclaimer: IANAL)
DTolm 6y ago
Hello, I am the author of VkFFT. When I made VkFFT I wanted license to be like this: your project doesn't have to be open-source, but please share your modifications to VkFFT. I think about switching it to MPL 2.0, is this one better for everybody?
- cycloptic 6y ago
  That would probably do what you want because it applies on a per-file basis and not to the entire program, but make sure you read the MPL FAQ and the fine print before making such a change: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/FAQ/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/FAQ/
- snovv_crash 6y ago
  Yes, MPLv2 does what you want. Consider that it's also used by Eigen. I strongly advocate for MPLv2 for math style libraries.
- drran 6y ago
  Goal of LGPL is to protect freedom of developers to modify code of a library (e.g. to improve it, fix bugs, fix incompatibilities, port to new hardware, etc.) shipped as part of proprietary application. This freedom is important for developers of niche OS'es. This protection works, because of hard consequences for proprietary code in case of license violation: proprietary code must be released under GPL then. MPL doesn't protect such developers, but it "forces" contribution of changes back to original code. In reality, it's ignored. Header-only library cannot be compiled as separate library, so requirements of LGPL cannot be met by proprietary code.
- Seirdy 6y ago
  It might be better to simply switch to the LGPL v3 or later, since that explicitly addresses header libs.