iOS Static Libraries Are, Like, Really Bad

Re:iOS Static Libraries Are, Like, Really Bad by rburhum on Sunday January 12, 2014 @06:23PM (#7047940)

Besides maintainability, there is the issue of not being able to use certain open source libraries (without some legal complexity) when you statically link libraries. IMHO, that is a much greater problem.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:iOS Static Libraries Are, Like, Really Bad by eropple on Sunday January 12, 2014 @09:15PM (#7048481)

The problems you refer to will still exist with the LGPL (inability to replace dynamic libraries).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:iOS Static Libraries Are, Like, Really Bad by rburhum on Monday January 13, 2014 @12:13AM (#7049040)

Not sure what you mean. If I had the ability to use shared libraries, I would be able to use LGPL code.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:iOS Static Libraries Are, Like, Really Bad by eropple on Monday January 13, 2014 @03:26AM (#7049485)

iOS still requires signed code. My understanding is that the LGPLv3, like the GPLv3, will prohibit this because the user can't deploy it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:iOS Static Libraries Are, Like, Really Bad by rburhum on Monday January 13, 2014 @04:04AM (#7049564)

In practice, LGPLv3 is much different than previous versions of the LGPL. The truth is that many excellent projects have chosen to either stick to not go the v3 route intentionally (because of the extra restrictions), and if they do, several of them choose to dual license under both versions. I can think of numerous projects that are under LGPL v2 (like ffmpeg, GEOS, mapnik, custom webkit) which would cause an amazing suite of iOS applications to surface, but with the current situation, they cannot. Signing is not a requirement of any of those libraries mentioned.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:iOS Static Libraries Are, Like, Really Bad by eropple on Monday January 13, 2014 @07:25PM (#7054574)

OK, how does Joe Enduser replace an LGPLv2 library on iOS, as is his legal right under the license?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:iOS Static Libraries Are, Like, Really Bad by rburhum on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @02:58AM (#7055933)

Would you kindly point out which section of the LGPLv2 gives you explicitly that right?

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.html

I would emphasize the terms "work that uses the library" vs "derivative work of the library" which have historically been used to differentiate between static vs dynamic linking.

In addition, how would I go about doing this in Android? And how does Apple distribute LGPL libraries (like Webkit) without "[allowing] Joe Enduser [to] replace an LGPLv2 library on iOS"?

[ Parent | on HN ]