• PixxlMan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I find the distinction that dynamically linking GPL is fine but statically linking it is not to be so ridiculous. That’s obviously just an implementation detail. The only conceivable difference other than the pointless “technuchalley your program contains GPL code now as part of the file” is that you have to do dynamic linking, which is slightly slower. How does the fact that your work is dynamically linked vs statically linked make any difference to the people writing GPL libraries??

    • float@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think that’s for LGPL. For GLP any form of linking requires the code to be licensed under GPL, too. The dynamic linking except isn’t that bad of you think about it. It gives you the freedom to update or replace the library at any time. For security critical libs (TLS, GPG, …) that’s a big plus.

    • bufalo1973@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Dynamic linking let’s you use an already packaged library that its source you don’t touch.

      Static linking means you have to show the source just in case you did some change.