Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

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.


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?


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.


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.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: