3 ms·
For the LGPL portion, it was linked statically, so they need to at minimum release enough of the code so that the LGPL portion can be relinked. This would not b
by oakwhiz 4y ago
For the LGPL portion, it was linked statically, so they need to at minimum release enough of the code so that the LGPL portion can be relinked. This would not be an issue if it was linked dynamically. If they modified the LGPL portion they also need to make those modifications available to whoever they provided the binary to.
For the GPL portion they need to release the code for the whole binary.
- leni536 4y agoAFAIK the point of the LGPL is that the LGPL license parts must be replaceable with a user-modified version. The easiest way to achieve that is through dynamic linking, but it's not the only way. They could release object files of their library and the LGPL licensed parts, document how to replace the object files of the LGPL licensed parts if you wish to do so, and how to link the whole thing into a dynamic library.