Once upon a time, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
