Re: Making commercial software that uses the gtkmm library

[Robert Pearce <rob bdt-home demon co uk>]

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, BetancourtLuisMiguel 
<betancourtluismiguel gmail com> wrote :
> But I have been reading that, If you use a library under the LGPL, the 
> problem is in the way you distribute your software: *statically *or 
> *dynamically.

Well, that choice certainly affects how the LGPL affects you.

> *I understand that if I use the static link (when I distribute my 
> software with the library in my software package, right?) my software 
> becomes LGPL and I don't want my code to be open source, I want to make 
> it commercial and close-source code.

No, that's not right. If you incorporate GPL code in your program then 
you must make your program GPL, but that is explicitly not true of LGPL. 
The situation is a little confusing, as the LGPL requires you to allow 
the customer to use a modified version of the LGPL'd library you've 
incorporated. So you would have to provide a way for the customer to 
obtain from you the linkable object files needed to re-link your 
application with a re-built copy of GTK. But that's not the same as 
providing source code.

> In the other hand is the dynamic linking that is, I have to distribute 
> my software package without the gtkmm library. But the problem is that 
> I have to say to the customer to download the gtkmm library besides my 
> software.

I don't think the LGPL actually requires you not to distribute the gtkmm 
library. It does require that you admit it's gtkmm and that it's open 
source and provide your customer with an easy way to get the source. But 
that may only mean something as simple as including the LGPL text and 
the GTKmm project URL on your installer CD.

That said, IANAL.
--
Rob Pearce                       http://www.bdt-home.demon.co.uk

The contents of this | Windows NT crashed.
message are purely   | I am the Blue Screen of Death.
my opinion. Don't    | No one hears your screams.
believe a word.      |