3 ms·
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
by 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 agoAccording 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 agoCertainly 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 agoAlternatively you could include the offer to distribute
- wizzwizz4 5y agoOnly with (L)GPLv2, I believe.