[cairo] Pango License
thomas at wsinnovations.com
Wed Dec 15 14:28:31 PST 2010
> Behdad Esfahbod <behdad at behdad.org> wrote:
> On Linux, they don't have to ship the LGPL code, they just use it.
That is clearly insane. Why bother having a license that says, "here are
some rules for library X, but if you distribute library X via a third party
then the rules don't apply." I'm not disputing you, I just had not thought
of that one.
> There are considerable problems with shipping LGPL code. They are
> clear if you read the text of the LGPL. For example, if you want to
> binary (embedded firmware, executable, installer, etc), then by item
> number 6
I just read that section. On a technical note, isn't part of the idea of a
shared/dynamic library so that the library can be swapped without
necessitating a recompile, provided (like the text says) the same library
definition holds? Why the need for object files? (more of a rhetorical
Clearly I need to do more research. Is the situation
better/worse/unchanged in your opinion with LGPLv3?
More information about the cairo