Am 02.06.2011 16:28, schrieb Reuben Thomas:
Well, we have to provide object files and documentation on how this has to be done. This means additional work. But we want to provide our users with a single .exe file. It is the additional work that we fear. And then there is more: As you may know, some Windows Mobile binaries are signed. And can only be loaded when signed (depending on the security settings of the device). Now how does a enduser get a signature on his newly linked file? This whole "allow the user to relink" bullshit just don't work in the commercial world, that's why we avoid the hassles from the beginning...On 2 June 2011 15:20, Marc Balmer<marc@msys.ch> wrote:Am 02.06.2011 15:40, schrieb Reuben Thomas:On 2 June 2011 10:07, Marc Balmer<marc@msys.ch> wrote:LGPL is not acceptable due to the condition that an end user must be able to link against newer versions of a library.That's a new one on me! Reference? I can't find anything about a problem like this...Section 4, subsection d, of the LGPL. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0-standalone.htmlYes, it's very clear, thanks. But I'm still not clear how this is a problem?