Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?

[Thomas Preud'homme]

Le jeudi 2 mai 2013 13:28:52, Daniel Glöckner a écrit :
> Hi Rune,
> 
> On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 10:37:58AM +0000, address@hidden wrote:
> > From my perspective I'd like to skip the additional worry about which
> > programs can be linked to which libraries and "how".
> 
> if you are a packager, why do you have to worry about that?
> I mean, if you still have the possibility to chose which library to
> link to, most of the time the program is already (L)GPL compatible.
> And if you always use the shared library, there is never a problem
> with LGPL.

By the way, you might be interested in reading http://lwn.net/Articles/548216/

> 
> > I dislike dynamic linking for technical reasons (too much complexity,
> > artificial limitations and side effects, many times for no gain). Then,
> > I dislike licenses which force me to use inferior/inappropriate technical
> > means.
> 
> Can you elaborate on that? Aside from some people not understanding
> how to use SONAMEs (Tegra 2 libjpeg.so binary blob...), I've never had
> problems with shared libraries. Off the top of my head I remember three
> cases where shared libs were superior:

Nicely summarized here:

http://www.akkadia.org/drepper/no_static_linking.html

Best regards,

Thomas

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.