[cairo] Pango License

[Thomas Stover]

> 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
evident
> and
> clear if you read the text of the LGPL.  For example, if you want to
ship
> one
> 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
question).

Clearly I need to do more research. Is the situation
better/worse/unchanged in your opinion with LGPLv3?

-- 
www.thomasstover.com