Once upon a time, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm(a)ATrpms.net> said:
Ah, OK, I had missed the and/or in your statement above. In that
case
we agree, the LGPL doesn't require source code. And what I learned is
that it requires you to ship object code, not only the final
executable. I wonder how many ISVs really do that. Or whether they
argue that the statically build exectuable can be dismantled with
binutils.
I've never tried that. I wonder just how hard it would be to get
something useful. Could you decompose a statically linked binary and
relink it (against the same glibc, etc.) to get a dynamically linked
binary (that should then work with newer glibcs)? Once a static binary
is stripped, I don't think there's enough information left, is there?
> I really suggest you read the license; you have a copy (or maybe
more
> than one) on your system. It is pretty straight forward.
OK, I admit, you were right and I need to learn to read. :)
Meh, it get me something to do on a slow Friday afternoon at work. :-)
--
Chris Adams <cmadams(a)hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.