MPL2 instead of LGPL

[Roman Gilg]

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 6:01 PM Sandro Andrade <sandroandrade at kde.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 5:11 AM Roman Gilg <subdiff at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
>
> Hi Roman,
>
> > * Proprietary code static linking LGPL code is not practically doable.
> > [5] See also above ZeroMQ exception.
>
> This is a topic every now and then pops around when discussing
> licensing issues. The FSF is pretty clear in stating the providing
> object files are enough to enable users to relink with different
> versions of the LGPL library. I see some projects using LGPL + static
> linking exceptions and I've read all the things regarding "work based
> on the library" vs "work which uses the library", header dependencies,
> and so on but such LGPL exceptions look more like a clarification
> point than a thing not already covered by LGPL.
>
> I really don't see the point of comments like "If you statically link
> a LGPL library, then the application itself must be LGPL. We have had
> our lawyer double-check on this in the past. Dynamically linking to a
> LGPL library is the only way to avoid becoming LGPL", presented in the
> stackoverflow link [5] you provided.
>
> Could you elaborate a bit why this is not practically doable or
> legally incorrect?

Hi Sandro,

no I can't. I was just rephrasing what I read in some sources online
and asking here for educated opinions on if this interpretation is
right or wrong. Thanks for taking the time to "debunk" some of the
myths floating around.

Do you see it the same way in regards to the usage of templates in C++
libraries licensed under the LGPL? Is this also a "non-issue" in the
end?

> Cheers,
> Sandro