3 ms·
Yeah, I am mistaken but you do have to give away source to your product because of the viral nature of the LPGL. So it's not completely free to do what you want
by msie 3y ago
Yeah, I am mistaken but you do have to give away source to your product because of the viral nature of the LPGL. So it's not completely free to do what you want. And I've always been suspicious of the dynamic linking loophole.
- michaelsbradley 3y agoIncorrect.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- fluoridation 3y agoThe so-called dynamic linking loophole applies to the GPL, not the LGPL. An LGPL library can be linked and distributed with a closed source program if the end user is able to replace the library with a build of their own. The loophole you're referring to involves creating a generic plugin interface that allows the program to use any library as long as it meets the requirements of the plugin system. If the program can function even when no plugins are present, the program cannot be said to be derivative of any plugin; it's the plugins that depend on the program, not vice versa. Therefore, you could for example develop an open source plugin that extends the functionality of your program and depends on GPL'd components and distribute that plugin binary and its source code with your closed source application.