On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 9:12 AM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 11:29 AM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > One other thing is the license of the rust bindings themselves - I'm > > not a lawyer but it seems to me that if you link against LGPL code > > statically, your code must be licensed under an LGPL-compatible > > license. > > Nope. The LGPL was created exactly for clarifying and avoiding that > situation. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License > > It is a common misunderstanding that GPL overall has anything to do > with whether you link things this or that way, the legal term used is > "derivative work" and the meaning of that can only be determined in > court. The meaning can depend on the intent of the author and misc > legal ramifications. > > In many ways LGPL is unnecessary, but it was created exactly to make > non-legal people less weary about situations relating to linking of > libraries. > > It is fine to link an LGPL statically into whatever software, but one needs > to provide header files and linkable static objects (.a files) of the library > to the user. > > Yours, > Linus Walleij Thanks Linus! Makes perfect sense. Bart