0

I would like to know if it's allowed to distribuite a binary-only/non-LGPL'ed application together with a shared library (used by the application itself) in a single archive, where the original source code of that library is covered by the LGPL and has not been modified for the application use.

The reason is that the application can be compiled so that it searches for the library in the current directory ./ first, for example. This would make the binary-only application depending on a particular version of the lib almost identical to the same application with that library statically linked, although in the latter case you must license the resulting application under the terms of the LGPL.

Myapp/      -- the archive
   myapp    -- the binary-only application
   otherlib.so -- the LGPL'ed library

$ cd Myapp
$ ./myapp

Martin
  • 9,089
  • 11
  • 52
  • 87
  • 4
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because [licensing advice is off-topic on Stack Overflow.](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/274964/1402846) You may be able to get help on [Programmers Stack Exchange, but **read their faq carefully** before proceeding.](http://meta.programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/7265/when-is-a-software-licensing-question-on-topic) – durron597 Jun 04 '15 at 03:12

1 Answers1

0

I think your proposed distribution is fine.

To comply with LGPL it must be possible for users of your application to drop their own version of otherlib.so and have your app run using this. Assuming this requirement only covers binary compatible changes, it sounds like the requirement is met in your case by a distribution containing only a binary version of your app.

simonc
  • 41,632
  • 12
  • 85
  • 103