Re: Standalone Glibmm::ustring

On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 16:22 +0200, Jasper Horn wrote:
> Murray Cumming wrote:
> > 20 dlls for glibmm or libxml++? That seem unlikely. Are you sure?
> 20 dlls for glibmm was what  the page you linked to said.

I guess you mean gtkmm, not glibmm, right?

>  By trial on
> error I have reduced this to six libraries I actually need - totalling
> 7 MB.

Out of interest, what are those 6 libraries?

> > Is your application open source? You can't statically link to an LGPL
> > library if your application is not open source, such as GPL.
> I am undecided on how I'll be licensing the application - so for now
> the answer to that question is no. I thought that LGPL allowed me to
> link statically without using an open source license myself. Now that
> I am doing some research in this it seems that I indeed am not
> required to use an open source license when linking statically, but
> that I would need to provide the source of the LGPL'ed software
> together with the .o files of any other code.

No, I don't think that's true. Linking statically makes your application
a derivation of the library. But I'm not a laywer and google should be
helpful enough with this.

> Anyway, let's exclude statically linking (at the very least for now).
> Then I guess it would be advisable - if I want to get rid of the dead
> weight - to create a glibmmustring dll, licensed under LGPL, which I
> can link to dynamcally in my application, right?

I'm not in any rush to do that myself, but it is open source, so you can
do that if you really want. You can also patch libxml++ itself, if you'd
like to maintain that:

Personally, I'd just use the files already available from that installer
and not worry about it.

murrayc murrayc com

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