🪿

  • Delilah (She/Her)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    You know what, that explains how they can exist on linux at all. Because from what I understand, if glibc was GPL and not LGPL, closed source software would basically be impossible to run on the platform. Which… maybe isn’t the best outcome when you think about it. As much as I hate the Zoom VDI bridge, I don’t want “using windows” to be the alternative.

    and yeah, from the source you provided, I can see why they don’t statically link. “If you dynamically link against an LGPLed library already present on the user’s computer, you need not convey the library’s source”. So basically if they bundle glibc then they need to provide the glibc source to users on request but if they just distribute a binary linked against the system one then that’s their obligations met.

    Welcome to “complying with the LGPL for the terminally lazy”, I’ll be your host “Every early linux port of a steam game!”

    • qqq@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      My understanding of the linking rules for the GPL is that they’re pretty much always broken and I’m not even sure if they’re believed to be enforceable? I’m far out of my element there. I personally use MPLv2 when I want my project to be “use as you please and, if you change this code, please give your contributions back to the main project”