🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 18 Mar 1995, Thomas G. McWilliams wrote:

> In article <3kacan$kmn@news.umbc.edu> you wrote:
> : One of the posters said something really intelligent.  'The LGPL is
> : one of the big obstacles to business use of Linux'  or something like it.
> : I agree.  Businesses will generate tons of code for an OS if they
> : think they can get some of their investment back by selling it. 
> 
> As usual, you have fallen victim to random net advice. There is 
> nothing to prevent you from building applications under Linux
> and doing what you want with them. Anyone who told you otherwise
> is either a liar or just plain ignorant. For one thing, Linux uses
> shared libraries so when you link your program it doesn't even
> contain any library code, only a start-up stub.  

Uhhhh, yeah - but there are statically linked libraries as well right?  
And isn't printf and malloc and all that basic stuff in a static lib?

> 
> As far as the LGPL is concerned, the only case of interest is if
> you create static linked binaries.  In this case the LGPL only
> asks that you also make available your program in object format
> (*NOT* source) so that the user can re-link your program in the
> event that bugs are corrected in the library. It has nothing to
> do with your program code. It merely allows the end user to
> maintain his investment with respect to the most bug free version
> of the library. Since Linux defaults to shared libraries, this case
> really is a non-issue under Linux. 

Ok, lemme get this straight - I distribute a statically linked binary but 
along with it I include, for anyone who wants it, an object file and tell 
him what compiler flags to use to re-link it on his system.  That way, if 
the libraries change or he thinks he has better libraries than the ones I 
linked with he can do it?  This sounds reasonable.

> Companies much bigger than yourself are selling Linux applications
> without any problem (e.g. Wolfram Research and Maple V). 

Well, I'm not really a company.  Just a guy with a DX2 and too much time 
on his hands :-)

> 
> : This is a shame because Linux has it all over Win or
> : WinNT in terms of general robustness.  I mean I've got 7 apps
> : up under X right now.  
> 
> Think about how Linux got to be so good. It was a perfect case 
> example of how the GNU licenses fostered excellence in programming.
> Perhaps you should join that team?


Thanks for the help Thomas.  I appreciate it a lot. - GP