Re: New package managment

[Borko Jandras <bjandras@public.srce.hr>]

On Fri, Sep 24, 1999 at 01:05:03AM +0200, Jarda Benkovsky wrote:
> > I do not like static linking too. But the first priority is that it
> > works, and only the second priority is that it works nice, doesn´t
> > consume too much memory, ...
> 
> I want both :-)
> 
> > >And BTW for binary only programs it violates GPL if you statically
> > >link libc or another GPL'ed library.
> > 
> > My RPM package says that the libc is under the following license:
> > 1981-95 Regents of the University of California. , Free Software
> > Foundation, Inc.
> > Is that the GPL?
> 
> In fact, libc5's various parts are covered by GPL, LGPL and BSD
> licenses.
> (That says my debian libc5 package).
> 
> > Does it really violate the GPL, if I link statically to a GPL
> > library and include the sourcecode of the library?
> 
> Yes, it does. This is the excerpt from LGPL, which is more relaxed:

Question: why would you wan't to statically link libc?  People sometimes forget
that it's possible to link some libraries statically and other dynamically in
the same executable.

Like, for example, if I'm releasing a OpenGL-based game binary, then libc,
libm, libGL and libGLU would be linked dynamically while lib3dfun,
libmywackystuff and libGLThings would be linked statically.  And I would claim
that you need OpenGL libraries to play this game.

-- 
Borko Jandras	<bjandras@public.srce.hr>