From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,6071f84396b8f5aa X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8 Received: by 10.68.38.134 with SMTP id g6mr2848253pbk.6.1318946597822; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 07:03:17 -0700 (PDT) Path: d5ni27280pbc.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!feeder.news-service.com!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?Yannick_Duch=C3=AAne_=28Hibou57?= =?utf-8?Q?=29?= Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Writing PDF files Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 16:03:15 +0200 Organization: Ada @ Home Message-ID: References: <7h50n8-3ig.ln1@newserver.thecreems.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: KHj9AOPOidgt0YptnGtG5g.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Opera Mail/11.51 (Linux) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:14050 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable Date: 2011-10-18T16:03:15+02:00 List-Id: Le Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:46:10 +0200, Jeffrey Creem a= = =C3=A9crit: > The idea behind the LGPL language there is that it must be technically= = > possible to re-create the program in question and update/replace/bug = > fix/modify the portion that is covered by LGPL. OK! That's simply GPL with no contamination so. LGPL, is still GPL = (internally) for what is licensed with it, and to fulfill the requiremen= t = of the GPL only on that part, you need some kind access to it. That's = rather clever finally, kind of bridge between two worlds. > The license language is not asking you to warranty that there > exists an continuing stream of LGPL library updates that will > always link against the .o files of your application,but providing th= em = > does allow users at least the freedom to fix bugs in the LGPL portion = = > and create a new application. Technically speaking, for that kind of maintenance, dynamic linking is t= he = better way to go. However, the case of an API change is still a challeng= e = even if wrappers may be an option. If this ever occur, the best is to as= k = the provider of the proprietary application, to build a release compatib= le = with the new API, what he/she would probably be glad to do, if he/she = cares to its users (and reputation). If not an available service, I anyw= ay = believe this is unlikely someone could safely play with binary objects = files to fix something --- too much an unsafe hack --- better play on = something you have access to source and possibly design a wrapper or a = custom version of the shared library. So, I still vote Shared Library = (unless I've still not understood). Thanks for clarifications Jeffrey :) (was clearer than the Wikipedia pro= se) -- = =E2=80=9CSyntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.=E2=80=9D [Ep= igrams on = Programming =E2=80=94 Alan J. =E2=80=94 P. Yale University] =E2=80=9CStructured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.= =E2=80=9D [Idem] Java: Write once, Never revisit