4 ms·
I’m not sure what the best path forward is for making single-binary apps without static-compiling in of the libraries. Licensing usually makes that untenable.
by dgfitz 2y ago
I’m not sure what the best path forward is for making single-binary apps without static-compiling in of the libraries. Licensing usually makes that untenable.
- ryandrake 2y agoThe license is one of many the tradeoffs you make when you choose whether or not to include third party libraries. You don't have to use them.
- dgfitz 2y agoI sure don’t. You nailed it.
- maccard 2y agoPay for it, or open source your work (assuming you’re talking about QT).
- TingPing 2y agoThe classic option is just a self extracting exe. I don’t really understand the fear of archives personally.
- gkbrk 2y agoWhich license forbids static linking?
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y agoThey might be referring to *GPL libraries not allowing proprietary / permissive exes to static-link them. e.g. I think Qt requires its DLLs to be separate on disk as part of the LGPL, unless you buy the commercial license.
- rubymamis 2y agoPlease don’t spread misinformation, there’s a HUGE difference between GPL and LGPL, and you CAN statically link with LGPL you just must provide the object files to the user so they can re-link them with any version of Qt they want.