On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 10:24 +0100, minh thu wrote:
In short, if I understand you correctly, you would just have to provide your code in unlinked form regardless of the existence of some tool to create another ABI-compatible version of the LGPL library.
Right. The procedure I mentioned is just to ensure that it is at least possible, so that you don't accidentally provide your code in unlinked form that's totally borked! :-) By making the single large .o form and then using that to make your final exe, then you guarantee that there were no missing symbols or whatever in the .o form that you will provide.
This alongside of the last discussion (which also roughly said you can license the code as you want when it is the client responsability to link the final binary) makes the (L)GPL quite useless (as a "freedom" keeper) whenever the code is made for specific clients...
It guarantees your client has the freedoms under the LGPL. If they choose never to redistribute then of course that's up to them and so any improvements you or they have made will not be available for upstream. But that is the intent of the LGPL, to protect the rights of the users *receiving* the code, not to guarantee that modifications are available to the entire world. Duncan