Y'all are a bunch of wankers!

yay!  qt is going lgpl


My erection has never been larger and more impressive than it is right now.

I assume its just the parts that are currently gpl, not the entire wodge, but that'll do me.  opengl, webkit...mmmm.....
Permalink whistle 
January 14th, 2009 4:05am
I have no idea what you look like, but the image is still  highly disturbing.
Permalink LeftWingPharisee 
January 14th, 2009 8:14am
Even more disturbing if you know what he looks like.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
January 14th, 2009 8:36am
What? Really? LGPL? Wow, I must post this to reddit!

Like about 274322 other people did. I confess, I really wanted to "repost dildo" then, but then realised they might all google the term and end up here.
Permalink Gerald Hoppy 
January 14th, 2009 11:31am
"repost dildo" them, not "repost dildo" then.
Permalink Gerald Hoppy 
January 14th, 2009 11:32am
OK, it comes out in March 2009. I will switch to it then for a new project.

Is the 4.4 version so much different that I should wait or can I start the project now with 4.4 then relink with the LGPL'd 4.5?
Permalink Skylar 
January 14th, 2009 11:49am
its hard to say, I was wondering the same thing.  I am going to assume its going to be similar enough to start with 4.4 and relink later.

man, this rocks, Ive been wanting to use it forever, and I have an idea for a project for which it would be perfect.
Permalink whistle 
January 14th, 2009 2:18pm
One of the questions in the FAQ is about whether you can change a GPL project to LGPL, and they say that yes, you can.

So, start a GPL project now, don't release anything substantial, and then switch it to LGPL in March.  The only restriction about switching licenses is that you can't start a project as [L]GPL and then switch to the fully commerical license.
Permalink Simon Jester 
January 14th, 2009 2:55pm
Problem as I see it is the LGPL, according to Stallman, does not permit static linking. If you do static linking, then your application becomes a derivative work and you have to open the source code, same as the GPL. LGPL allows dynamic linking, but then that means installers and the DLL hell experience of finding that the installed version of QT does not match the version you are expecting, so you override that and now some other program like Opera or Google Earth breaks, so then you have to go back and forth and something is always broken.

Without static linking, it's not useful.

Dynamic linking only really works OK when there is completely standardized APIs that never ever change, like libc.
Permalink Consultant 
January 14th, 2009 3:11pm
I don't remember - can you use dynamic linking and install app-specific versions of the .so?
Permalink Aaron 
January 14th, 2009 10:01pm
static linking to lgpl is fine, and whether or not stallman said something to the contrary is entirely irrelevant.

frankly, I doubt he did.
Permalink whistle 
January 15th, 2009 12:17am
There's pretty much no one other than you that thinks static linking to the LGPL is definitely OK.

There are those that say it is prohibited, and there are those who say that the situation is not clear. Most lawyers who have written on the subject say the LGPL language is complicated and unclear.

Most discussion has been regarding section 6 of version 2.1 of the license:


The latest though is version 3:


(As a separate topic, notice that pretty much if you are using the C++ template library that comes with g++, you are fucked because it is LGPL unless templates and inlines are less than 10 lines in length, which of course all the STL are bigger and so now you are GPLd, sucker.)

In version 3, you have section 4d. You have to either distribute source OR use dynamic linking. Static linking is not allowed with v3 of the LGPL at all.
Permalink Consultant 
January 15th, 2009 1:19am
BTW, some projects use the LGPL with a modified exception clause specifically permitting static linking.
Permalink Consultant 
January 15th, 2009 1:23am
"There's pretty much no one other than you that thinks static linking to the LGPL is definitely OK. "

nah, thats not true.  Ive also seen a *heap* of random anonymous posts on the internet claiming that it is ok.

but think about it, the lgpl is a copyright license that requires only that you give any changes to the specific code that is under lgpl back to the community.

it doesn't matter a damn whether the lgpl applies to static linking or not in such a way that your code also becomes lgpl because even if it does, you can still follow the license and not have to release your code to the community even if it does.

so, seriously, the lgpl is fine.

Permalink whistle 
January 15th, 2009 1:44am
Also, Stallman wants to track you down and sue you, best of luck to him.  You can probably get him tossed out of the court as a smelly and obstreperous vagrant before anybody realizes he is the plaintiff.
Permalink Send private email Clay Dowling 
January 15th, 2009 9:18am

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: January, 2009 Other topics: January, 2009 Recent topics Recent topics