bindist for Intel MacOS X 10.4 (Tiger) with static libs
gale at sefer.org
Thu Jan 17 13:13:31 EST 2008
Isaac Dupree wrote:
> It's also possible to just distribute, for
> example, the .o file(s) and a way to link them with a GMP to get the
> final result; this doesn't even reveal your source-code any more than
> your program being dynamically linked, at least if you do it right -- right?
It doesn't matter. In a typical commercial development
environment, you just don't have any control over that.
At some companies I've gotten free software included
in products in a way that required certain extra files
from the 3rd party to be included inside our installation
package - such as a source code tarball, GNU license,
and such. It wasn't easy, but I've done it. But to change
the way our own code is distributed - forget it.
If you happen to be in a situation where the LGPL thing
can be integrated as a dynamic library, fine. Otherwise,
I don't see it.
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users