3 ms·

Cool! Does this also mean that one could put most of the closed source part into a DLL, make a shell executable that is open source and statically link LGPL co

by alok-g 2y ago

Cool! Does this also mean that one could put most of the closed source part into a DLL, make a shell executable that is open source and statically link LGPL code into the latter? This then would allow modifications to the LGPL code to be put in just by having the closed source DLL.

singpolyma3 2y ago
I don't see why not. So long as the LGPL part can be modified and replaced, you're good. I am not a lawyer.
saagarjha 2y ago
I mean, if you're willing to do that why not just dynamically link?
- alok-g 2y ago
  The OP article is saying that static linking leads to size reduction. That's why asking.
  - saagarjha 2y ago
    You’re not getting a size reduction if you maintain a library boundary, though. What you’re doing is isomorphic to dynamically linking except the app code is in the library and the library code is in the main binary.
    - alok-g 2y ago
      Ok. I understood. Thanks for explaining.