Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by to3m 4795 days ago
LPGL isn't vastly better than the GPL as it makes it difficult to link statically and/or release for closed platforms. Its advocates would probably see these as plus points, but I'm not sure that they're going to increase uptake.
2 comments
thwest 4795 days ago
Difficult, but not really a significant part of the challenges for delivering closed source binaries across platforms.

On linux, you have to build distribution specific binaries that match the shared library versions in the package manager.

On Windows, you generally put all of your shared libraries in your application's folder, since there are plenty of bad actors who install DLLs without versions in the filename to system32. Leads to duplication on the system but its a generally accepted bad practice.

(Can't speak to shipping LGPL libs on OS X).

link
to3m 4795 days ago
I was thinking more of Xbox360, Playstation3, iOS, etc. - none support user-replacable files. I don't even think any even support dynamic linking... )
link
eps 4795 days ago
LGPL basically means that if I modify the libary code, I should open source the changes, but I can build derived products (in GPL sense) from an unchanged lib as much as I want. This static vs dynamic linking debate is a silly pendantry, enforcing which doesn't contribute anything to the GNU's goals or vision. It's really disappointing to see people time on this. If you want to pursue justice - go after the GPL violations. Making one to re-link a binary to force a compliance is a misplaced effort and essentially a waste of everyone's time.
link
to3m 4794 days ago
Requiring the programmers to keep their changes to the library open is one aspect of keeping the software free; requiring that the end user be able to replace the library with a different one is another, and one that the FSF seems keen on maintaining. Personally, I agree that wider-spread usage of the libraries would be better than the current rather doctrinaire stance - but I assume the FSF sees the LGPL's current emphasis on end-user freedom as contributing more to the GNU goals than wider-spread usage of the libraries would.

In the meantime, there's always the MIT licence.

link