tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10391094.post115357467390863630..comments2023-11-03T06:58:47.813-06:00Comments on Beyond Dante: 3rd party software provisoTimothyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03759342089534794574noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10391094.post-1154530532591213682006-08-02T08:55:00.000-06:002006-08-02T08:55:00.000-06:00This is fastinating, really fastinating. Do the ki...This is fastinating, really fastinating. Do the killer app actually kill the other app?Jinbon H Wrong aka Sloop John Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15076836407247433369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10391094.post-1153585552102154302006-07-22T10:25:00.000-06:002006-07-22T10:25:00.000-06:00Interesting Post!A few notes: Based on my (limite...Interesting Post!<BR/><BR/>A few notes: Based on my (limited -- I'm no lawyer) understanding of these licenses, LGPL does not require you to distribute library source code with the compiled product. <BR/><BR/>However, you do need to ensure your product is dynamically linked against the LGPL library, allowing others to substitute updated/patched versions of the library with your application. Source code for the LGPL library must also be available , but not necessarily bundled.<BR/><BR/>Staticly linked (against LGPL code) executables may also be distributed, but only if a dynamically linked executable is also available for download or included with the product distribution. I've seen several commercial Linux software vendors do just this (release a static linked version of their software, but also make a dynamically linked version available for LGPL compliance), as earlier Linux distributions weren't as forgiving with dynamic library issues.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com