It's a left join to the GPL table right?
Today's conclusion: most people on Twitter who think they know how the LGPL works actually don't (and won't read it and fix their misconceptions before randomly attempting to "correct" me).
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Sometimes they notice themselves and fix it. IIRC I once caught
@jugendingenieur with LGPL'ed code statically linked into the OP-1 firmware once (but didn't say anything), then it mysteriously got replaced with a permissive alternative in a later version.
End of conversation
-
-
-
It's too complicated, still. That's why more and more developers go with ISC/MIT/BSD style license.
-
there is nothing hard about the concept of "sure, you can use my code, but I want to be able to modify my code in the context of your application"
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I have read it, it was a while ago. Legal documents are never quite as clear as they sometimes first appear.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
A short summary? What are the misconceptions? E.g. a closed source application linking to a LGPL library would be permitted, isn't?
-
It creates no problems if you dynamically link, but with static linking you have to provide a way to relink to newer versions of the lgpl code, in most cases object files
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
-
To be fair, that doesn't cover the finer point the whole discussion was about. You need to use dynamic linking between LGPLed code and proprietary code.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.