Web lists-archives.com

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

gtk-list mailing list