Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > [mode=kidding] > So stop provide glibc-static and redirect those guys to /dev/tree in > uClibc garden may be kind of "solution" how to block (easy way) violating > LGPL .. > [/mode] I'm not kidding, and uClibc is also under the LGPL. >> ucLibc has the same issue, by the way. musl (https://www.musl-libc.org/) >> is a more reasonable choice for people who want to ship a statically- >> linked> proprietary blob. And, unlike glibc, musl is also designed for >> static linking. >> > > Hmm .. so probably this behavior was introduced in last few years. > I'm 100% sure that decade ago was possible to produce uClibc based static > binaries not affected by NSS ABI issue. I am not talking about technical issues (which I think do NOT affect uClibc, it is designed for static linking more than glibc is), but purely about licensing. Kevin Kofler _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
