|
|
> I think that was not the point.
Yes and no. Than was not her point but my point was weather or not
static linking is allowed.
>The point was that anyone receiving your application can enforce the LGPL
>obligations on you.
As I wrote, I understood that.
> So Nokia's opinion is not the only one you have to worry
>about. You have to worry about the opinion of everyone you're giving the
>application to.
Correct.
>In the static linking case, I think the point is that any recipient could ask
>you for the right to relink the application against a newer version of Qt and
>you can't deny them that right.
I had no such intention (and all this is just academic discussion I'm not (yet)
in the position to link anything either way).
But my point is that I can statically link my application as long as
I do not deny the users the right to re-link it.
And I can do that with static linking if in *addition to* the statically
linked
application executable I will distribute the unlinked object files of the
application as well.
I was further speculating that under 6c I would not even have to
distribute those unlinked object files if I just promised in writing to deliver
them on request.
So why am I interested in statical linking?
For one, it is often the preferred method by the user - a single working
executable
and not bunch of files and/or library dependencies.
Also, in an embedded environment statical linking has some appeal, at least
in particular circumstances.
> And no, relinking it for them is not an option.
Agreed.
br Kusti
_______________________________________________
Qt-interest mailing list
Qt-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.trolltech.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-interest
|
|