🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>> "Richard" == Richard Coleman <coleman@redwood.skiles.gatech.edu> writes:

david> Also, some system are distributed with glibc (or a variant) as
david> their C library, and if you hope to distribute commercial
david> (read: proprietary) software on such platforms you had better
david> be linking dynamically.
 
> I consider this unfortunate.  I believe this will prevent a lot of
> businesses from using Linux that otherwise would.  This is a shame
> since Linux is such a nice system.  Also, all the bug reports and
> fixes that these businesses would generate will not happen.

> I believe the LGPL is one of the biggest stumbling blocks to
> widespread useage of Linux (and eventually the Hurd).

I don't see the problem.  I can't see why dynamic linking isn't
acceptable, and I can't see why providing an object file with
everything but the relevant libraries (so that users can relink the
executable statically) isn't OK.

It's true, of course, that you can have more confidence in a
statically linked binary---how many Linux systems have the same set of
dynamic libraries---but providing an object file in addition so users
can link with the wrong libraries (at their own risk) is at most a
minor inconvenience, surely?
-- 
Bruce                   Institute of Advanced Scientific Computation
bruce@liverpool.ac.uk   University of Liverpool