3 ms·
No, LGPL has specific requirements for static linking. When your product is usually a Go binary that you can publish as is, using an LGPL library makes it trick
by PhilippGille 2y ago
No, LGPL has specific requirements for static linking. When your product is usually a Go binary that you can publish as is, using an LGPL library makes it tricky.
And re network service, I don't see the MPL tying the requirement to making changes available to a method of distribution.
- graemep 2y agoGood point. I am used to thinking in terms of thinks that are dynamically linked.
- michaelsbradley 2y agoStatic linking with LGPL is possible for proprietary software; the requirements are sometimes misunderstood: If you statically link against an LGPLed library, you must also provide your application in an object (not necessarily source) format, so that a user has the opportunity to modify the library and relink the application. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynami... So, relinkability is the key. For some platforms and toolchains that may be impractical but for others not so much.
- jenadine 2y agoThe LGPL is great for software libraries written in C, but doesn't really work for any other programming language. It uses concepts like object files and linking that assumes C. Even in C++ which is closely related you get issues with templates (users can't easily replace that code by their own since it is inlined in the binaries) Many programming languages don't even have the concept of dynamic linking or object files that can be shared.