Re:That Time I Recreated Photoshop in C++
by dgfitz on Sunday March 16, 2025 @11:39AM
(#43379868)
I’m not sure what the best path forward is for making single-binary apps without static-compiling in of the libraries. Licensing usually makes that untenable.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:That Time I Recreated Photoshop in C++
by ryandrake on Sunday March 16, 2025 @11:49AM
(#43379949)
The license is one of many the tradeoffs you make when you choose whether or not to include third party libraries. You don't have to use them.
I sure don’t. You nailed it.
Pay for it, or open source your work (assuming you’re talking about QT).
The classic option is just a self extracting exe. I don’t really understand the fear of archives personally.
Which license forbids static linking?
Re:That Time I Recreated Photoshop in C++
by 01HNNWZ0MV43FF on Sunday March 16, 2025 @01:28PM
(#43380648)
They might be referring to *GPL libraries not allowing proprietary / permissive exes to static-link them. e.g. I think Qt requires its DLLs to be separate on disk as part of the LGPL, unless you buy the commercial license.
Re:That Time I Recreated Photoshop in C++
by rubymamis on Sunday March 16, 2025 @01:36PM
(#43380709)
Please don’t spread misinformation, there’s a HUGE difference between GPL and LGPL, and you CAN statically link with LGPL you just must provide the object files to the user so they can re-link them with any version of Qt they want.