[alok-g]

Cool!

Does this also mean that one could put most of the closed source part into a DLL, make a shell executable that is open source and statically link LGPL code into the latter? This then would allow modifications to the LGPL code to be put in just by having the closed source DLL.

[singpolyma3]

I don't see why not. So long as the LGPL part can be modified and replaced, you're good.

I am not a lawyer.

[saagarjha]

I mean, if you're willing to do that why not just dynamically link?

[alok-g]

The OP article is saying that static linking leads to size reduction. That's why asking.

[saagarjha]

You’re not getting a size reduction if you maintain a library boundary, though. What you’re doing is isomorphic to dynamically linking except the app code is in the library and the library code is in the main binary.

[alok-g]

Ok. I understood. Thanks for explaining.