Thread: GPL violation?
View Single Post
Old 03-09-2008, 09:22 AM   #112
tompe
Grand Sorcerer
tompe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tompe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tompe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tompe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tompe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tompe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tompe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tompe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tompe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tompe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tompe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 7,452
Karma: 7185064
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Linköpng, Sweden
Device: Kindle Voyage, Nexus 5, Kindle PW
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT View Post
I'm curious as to what the practical difference is between statically and dynamically linking to a library in an embedded system such as the Gen3. Suppose you were to find a bug in the C runtime library - you couldn't do anything about it. Why does it therefore matter, from purely practical considerations, if you statically link the library?
The goal of the LGPL is that you should be able to do something about it so if you cannot then the license is not complied with. The same thing with the GPL:ed kernel. You should be able to rebuild it.
tompe is offline   Reply With Quote