[linux-elitists] LGPL compliance

[jkinz at kinz.org]

On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 01:51:26PM +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> 
> A quick question: I caught some local code monkeys using LGPL
> licensed code about to be shipped in a proprietary product. 
> In order to assure we're compliant, do we have
> to isolate the LGPL code into a dynamically linked library,
> or is it enough to use a statically linked library using
> unmodified LGPL code and ship the full source of the LGPL code
> and the license along with it without disclosing the proprietary
> code statically linked to it? IANAL, so I don't exactly know what
> qualifies as a derivative work.
> 
> I presume that we have to use a dynamic linking approach, but
> I'd like to check to make sure before making the people jump through
> a couple of extra hoops.
> 

Eugen, I am under the distinct impression that a LGPL library cannot be
statically linked and retain its LGPL compliance. You must keep
it in a dynamically linked library.

Jeff Kinz