3 ms·

If my dubious understanding of the GPL is correct, you can link to an LGPL DLL without assuming the LGPL. Distributing that DLL modified/unmodified would requir

If my dubious understanding of the GPL is correct, you can link to an LGPL DLL without assuming the LGPL. Distributing that DLL modified/unmodified would require also distributing the corresponding modified/unmodified source code. I don't think that in this case we have a violation (for the LGPL code) since it's unlikely that they modified the source code for the named libraries (and would provide links to the unmodified source code after application of legal pressure). I also would assume that the copyright notices required to be displayed are all listed somewhere buried in the about dialog of the running software. [append] > wintun.dll, from the Wintun project, without mentioning it, thus violating its license. Also, after reading the license, I don't see this particular clause at all.

contravariant 5y ago
From what I remember someone should basically be free to modify the DLL distributed under the LGPL license, so they need to be able to access the corresponding source-code and whatever logic is necessary to link a new DLL to the application (if required).
- stonemetal12 5y ago
  According to clause 4, you either provide enough source to compile and load a modified lib, or you use a dynamically linked lib. If you go the dynamic linking route no source distribution is required. I guess they figure the end user can get source from the library project themselves.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    > If you go the dynamic linking route no source distribution is required. For your code. The LGPL code still requires source distribution. (Plus, the BSD clause requires attribution.)
    - eurasiantiger 5y ago
      Certainly the authors of said LGPL code are distributing that source. Would it make sense to distribute the source of every .dll included in a project?
      - wizzwizz4 5y ago
        … Yes. That's your obligation under the LGPL. Pretty much your only obligation, actually – other than including the “this is this, by these people, licensed this way” boilerplate text.
      - manquer 5y ago
        Alternatively you could include the offer to distribute
        wizzwizz4 5y ago
        Only with (L)GPLv2, I believe.

contravariant 5y ago

From what I remember someone should basically be free to modify the DLL distributed under the LGPL license, so they need to be able to access the corresponding source-code and whatever logic is necessary to link a new DLL to the application (if required).

stonemetal12 5y ago
According to clause 4, you either provide enough source to compile and load a modified lib, or you use a dynamically linked lib. If you go the dynamic linking route no source distribution is required. I guess they figure the end user can get source from the library project themselves.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  > If you go the dynamic linking route no source distribution is required. For your code. The LGPL code still requires source distribution. (Plus, the BSD clause requires attribution.)
  - eurasiantiger 5y ago
    Certainly the authors of said LGPL code are distributing that source. Would it make sense to distribute the source of every .dll included in a project?
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      … Yes. That's your obligation under the LGPL. Pretty much your only obligation, actually – other than including the “this is this, by these people, licensed this way” boilerplate text.
    - manquer 5y ago
      Alternatively you could include the offer to distribute
      - wizzwizz4 5y ago
        Only with (L)GPLv2, I believe.