Is there an open source license that allows static linking of a library, but still requires open sourcing of changes to the library?

views:

answers:

Is there an open source license that allows static linking of a library, but still requires open sourcing of changes to the library?

Specifically a replacement for the LGPL that would allow you to statically link the library, while still preserving the copyleft of the original library code.

Edit:

It looks like the Sun Public license has the features I want, explicitly allows distribution of unmodified library, but requires providing source code for changes.

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/sunpublic.php

Thanks all!

+2 A:

You are suggesting exactly what the LGPL does, which is let others link to your code without having to put their code under the same license but also maintain the copyleft requirement for derived works.

Stephen Cross 2010-02-10 21:49:05

A bit confusing - the key feature is that code that is dynamically *or statically* linked does not have to be under the same license.

anon 2010-02-10 21:53:54

Static linking is covered the same as dynamic linking under the LGPL. See section 4.

Joel 2010-02-10 22:14:43

See comment above, the LGPL doesn't make explicit mention of static linking. Section 4d1) would seem to indicate that if I don't use a shared library mechanism, I'd have to distribute a copy of my application source so that people could relink with a modified library.

gct 2010-02-10 22:25:12

No, you could distribute the .o files and a linker script, like Sun used to do with their kernels.

Andrew McGregor 2010-02-10 22:59:27

I was not aware of that, if I didn't want to have to distribute discrete object files to support relinking, then are there other licensing options?

gct 2010-02-10 23:05:41

ansaurus

tags:

views:

answers:

Is there an open source license that allows static linking of a library, but still requires open sourcing of changes to the library?

related questions