[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       mono-list
Subject:    Re: [Mono-list] Monodevelop made application not starting on ubuntu
From:       Robert Jordan <robertj () gmx ! net>
Date:       2015-08-06 15:29:06
Message-ID: mpvug1$7la$1 () ger ! gmane ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On 06.08.2015 14:48, Edward Ned Harvey (mono) wrote:
> > From: mono-list-bounces@lists.ximian.com [mailto:mono-list-
> > bounces@lists.ximian.com] On Behalf Of Robert Jordan
> > 
> > On 05.08.2015 18:40, Andres G. Aragoneses wrote:
> > > > > I hope you've considered the licensing implications. In particular,
> > > > > if you distribute the mono runtime with an application, your
> > > > > application will need to be GPL.
> > > > The runtime is LGPL.
> > > 
> > > But AFAIU when you use mkbundle you're not "l"inking anymore, you're
> > > joining everything together in one executable. So then the result must
> > > be LGPL as well.
> > 
> > Only if mkbundle's --static option is used. Otherwise (w/out --static),
> > the bundled app is still dynamically loading the LGPLed runtime
> > (libmono*.so) => the license of the bundled app does not need
> > to be LGPL compatible.
> 
> This is emphatically a lawyer question. Are you a lawyer?

Which question? No one was asking for legal advice.

> The legal implication of static linking files is a fuzzy one - What if you're not \
> static linked but then your application gets distributed in a zip file or some \
> other package that joins them all into a single file? What if that package file is \
> self-executable? Very fuzzy.

I was solely talking about mkbundle's output. Other distribution
methods, like (self-extracting) archives that might by applied
after mkbundle, were not subject of the discussion.


_______________________________________________
Mono-list maillist  -  Mono-list@lists.ximian.com
http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]