[PD] linking libs with pd-lib-builder (was Re: fluid~)

Alexandre Torres Porres porres at gmail.com
Thu Jan 7 22:28:07 CET 2021


I forgot that ceammc has its own version of fluid~ and it is
distributed via deken. Well, I see no dynamic lib for fluidsynth in the
package, so I can only assume it loads it statically... not sure if the
authors will pick this up here, but I guess I'll ask them directly...

Em qui., 7 de jan. de 2021 às 03:07, Alexandre Torres Porres <
porres at gmail.com> escreveu:

> The license is being respected (I think?). I didn't touch it, see
> https://github.com/porres/pd-fluidsynth/blob/main/LICENSE.txt and, well,
> I do think I could make a variation of this in my ELSE library, but I'd
> keep the license untouched anyway. Thus, the bump in the way is still
> learning how to statically link a complex project like this...
>
> So, I started a new thread to announce the test builds for mac/windows,
> but it all seems fine. Now, what about Linux? There's mo magical scripts
> for linux, why? I guess Linux handles the dependencies nicely via apt-get
> and stuff, but what about sharing this via deken?
>
> cheers
>
> Em qua., 6 de jan. de 2021 às 09:43, Christof Ressi <
> info at christofressi.com> escreveu:
>
>> > static linking has *legal* implications:
>> > you cannot just distribute a binary that statically links a GPL-library
>> under another license (eg the dwtfyw license).
>> For the sake of clarity, the same is also true for dynamic linking!
>>
>> IOhannes knows this, of course, I just figured his comment could've
>> accidentally left some people with the impression that it's ok to
>> dynamically link a GPL library to a permissively (or even commerically)
>> licensed project.
>>
>> Now, libfluidsynth is actually LGPL v2 licensed. The LGPL has an
>> exception which allows to link a LGPL library to a permissively (or
>> commercially) licensed project. Many people seem to think that LGPL only
>> allows for dynamic linking, but it's also possible to link statically
>> under certain (more strict) conditions:
>>
>> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic
>>
>> ***DISCLAIMER***: This is just my understanding of the situation.
>> Anybody feel free to correct me on this!
>>
>> Christof
>>
>> On 06.01.2021 09:52, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
>> > Am 6. Jänner 2021 03:39:00 MEZ schrieb Alexandre Torres Porres <
>> porres at gmail.com>:
>> >> Personally, I strongly prefer static linking for plugins (like Pd
>> >>> externals).
>> >>>
>> >> seems best for me too!
>> >>
>> > well, apart from bloat (speaking with my system packager hat on),
>> static linking has *legal* implications:
>> > you cannot just distribute a binary that statically links a GPL-library
>> under another license (eg the dwtfyw license).
>> >
>> > are you prepared for doing your homework here?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > mfg.hft.fsl
>> > IOhannes
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
>> > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
>> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
>> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20210107/948375d5/attachment.html>


More information about the Pd-list mailing list