4 ms·
glibc is LGPL. Static linking your application implies some obligation on your part. Musl being MIT is less restrictive.
by skywal_l 3y ago
glibc is LGPL. Static linking your application implies some obligation on your part. Musl being MIT is less restrictive.
- Zambyte 3y ago[flagged]
- bigstrat2003 3y agoNo it doesn't. The MIT license is objectively less restrictive than the LGPL. Whether it's a good or bad thing to be less restrictive is a matter of opinion, but whether or not it is less restrictive is a matter of fact.
- Zambyte 3y agoLots of software licensed as MIT is distributed under a proprietary sublicense, which is as restrictive as it gets. That isn't the case with GPL licenses. It is a matter of fact that it's a matter of perspective.
- actionfromafar 3y agoNot very tough obligations, but it can be a practical hassle. This answer describes it quite well I think: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/13588/how-should-i-license-my-software-if-it-links-statically-with-glibc https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/13588/how-sho...