Static linking considered harmful

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net> said:
> Ah, OK, I had missed the and/or in your statement above. In that case
> we agree, the LGPL doesn't require source code. And what I learned is
> that it requires you to ship object code, not only the final
> executable. I wonder how many ISVs really do that. Or whether they
> argue that the statically build exectuable can be dismantled with
> binutils.

I've never tried that.  I wonder just how hard it would be to get
something useful.  Could you decompose a statically linked binary and
relink it (against the same glibc, etc.) to get a dynamically linked
binary (that should then work with newer glibcs)?  Once a static binary
is stripped, I don't think there's enough information left, is there?

> > I really suggest you read the license; you have a copy (or maybe more
> > than one) on your system.  It is pretty straight forward.
> 
> OK, I admit, you were right and I need to learn to read. :)

Meh, it get me something to do on a slow Friday afternoon at work. :-)
-- 
Chris Adams <cmadams at hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.