Luiji wrote:The LGPL will require the software to be (L)GPL software because by embedding the libraries into your package you are essentially doing the same as compiling a ".a" into a ".exe"/<no extension on Linux>. I'd be more sure, but the LGPL license is so long that I almost passed out while reading it last night. :we need a sleepy emoticon:
I don't think so. LGPL is all about
linking, not packaging. Zipping an executable along with LGPL'ed DLLs doesn't require the packer/unpacker to be released under the (L)GPL.
Basically, when you statically link your program with a library, the linker adds the .text section of the library to the .text section of the resulting executable and resolves all calls to the library at link time. When you dynamically link, the linker adds information to the executable so that when the program is run the OS can locate and load the library, add it to the address space of the executable and resolve the call to the library at run time instead of link time.
Packaging on the other hand just packs a bunch of files/folders into one archive. If you pack an executable and forget to pack a required DLL, the packer won't notice and the program will refuse to run after unpackaged.
And I can write in tiny letters too! I'm sorry to jump in out of nowhere, you have the right to treat me as a stranger. It's just that I have little time to do the things I like, like messing around with LÖVE and participating in the forums. LÖVE is a project I keep an eye on for some years now, and it made me decide to stop working on my own 2D engine (which was already working!) because more well tested than my engine would ever be.
Cheers,
Andre
