Re: GLib Library License

On 07/24/2016 02:47 AM, Daniel Espinosa wrote:
By review your comment against LGPL, and with same advertising I am not a
lawyer, if you provide your object files, you are not forced to distribute
the tools to generate binaries but instructions  to do so.

Android and iOS have tools to do so available to the users, then is a
matter to the users to create object files for GLib and use that tools to
create the binaries and installation package, using your object files.

You should provide a way to the users to download your object object files
and instructions to create binaries with links to available instructions in
each target platform.

Doing above, should be possible to use GLib/Vala in your project.

This is for static linking. I don’t know what is common on Android, but
it is simpler to dynamically link with GLib (as a *.so/*.dll/…), then
all the user needs to do to use a different GLib is replace the one
*.so/*.dll file.

I am not sure, but I believe this requirement can therefore be fulfilled
by a) using dynamic linking and b) providing the source code for GLib
and any other LGPL library. If you are *only* using LGPLv2 libraries and
no LGPLv3, then I believe this is enough even if Digital Restrictions
Management prevents the user from actually replacing the *.so/*.dll
file, but IANAL.

Florian Pelz

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]