![]() |
|
|
#1 |
|
P90 years forever!
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL
2·53·71 Posts |
Any lawyers here?
I get a headache reading LGPL licensing rules. If prime95 calls GMP functions in a GMP shared library will I run afoul of the LGPL license in any way? Remember that prime95 does not publish all its source code and thus cannot use GPL code. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
"Mike"
Aug 2002
25·257 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Aug 2006
3×1,993 Posts |
My understanding is that this is the whole point of the LGPL -- that you can link to a shared LGPL library even if your software is not open-source at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Sep 2016
22·83 Posts |
Yes, you're allowed to link to LGPL from closed-sourced code. But there is a difference between dynamic linking and static linking.
The idea here is that someone must be able to use their own version of the LGPL library. In the case of dynamic linking, they can simply swap out the library. In the case of static linking, that's not possible. Therefore, you're required to provide a way to relink. There are exceptions though. For example, most of the "system libraries" in Linux (i.e. libc) have a static-linking exception to allow static-linking without the ability to relink. Otherwise, every closed-sourced program compiled with GCC and distributed would be in violation of the LGPL. I don't believe GMP has this static-linking exception. Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer and this does not constitute as legal advice. Last fiddled with by Mysticial on 2017-08-28 at 17:14 |
|
|
|