[cairo] Re: License for cairo changed to LGPL
spitzak at d2.com
Thu Aug 5 14:06:49 PDT 2004
On Wednesday 04 August 2004 06:31 pm, James Henstridge wrote:
> If the user makes a change to the library that breaks its ABI, then that
> is the user's problem. This is mentioned in section 6 (a):
> (It is understood that the user who changes the contents of
> definitions files in the Library will not necessarily be able to
> recompile the application to use the modified definitions.)
> Or do you interpret this differently?
No you are right, it sounds like they avoided this problem.
I think the main objection to the LGPL is that it requires the library to be
a shared library. Technically this is bad as it tends to freeze the library
API, it also makes a new library unpopular as it has to be "installed" before
programs using it work, while static-linked libraries work instantly.
Certainly there is a lot of precedence for allowing static linking, as people
have found a dozen or so versions of these "exception clauses" so far.
More information about the cairo