Re: Exception to LGPL license for LAME

Hi John,

you are right, technically he can statically link LGPL code.
But I don't know how practical it is, to provide necessary
object code to let an end user re-link his application with
some newer version of a LGPL'ed library.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10130143/gpl-lgpl-and-static-linking

* Proprietary Source code + LGPL Source code

+ statically linked:

	- Either you must release both parts as LGPL.

	- Or provide everything that allow the user to relink the
application with a different version of the LGPL source code.
In this case the other requirements are the same as if it was
dynamically linked.

+ dynamically linked:

	 - LGPL code stays LGPL, you can keep the proprietary code proprietary.


Ciao Robert

Am 06.03.2014, 13:03 Uhr, schrieb John Edwards  
<[email protected]>:

> Hello Robert,
>
> Anthony seems to be under the impression that within the terms of the  
> LGPL licence, he cannot statically link to the LAME library. Correct me  
> if I'm wrong, but I didn't think any such restriction existed.
>
> regards
>
> John

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subversion Kills Productivity. Get off Subversion & Make the Move to Perforce.
With Perforce, you get hassle-free workflows. Merge that actually works. 
Faster operations. Version large binaries.  Built-in WAN optimization and the
freedom to use Git, Perforce or both. Make the move to Perforce.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=122218951&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk