Re: libgcj linking and licensing issues

[Bryce McKinlay <mckinlay at redhat dot com>]

Jim Plak wrote:

> Question 1:
> Based on the special exception I know if I statically
> link with libgcj (and libgcc) I'm OK. I found,
> however, that building a shared object (using -shared)
> that statically links libgcj and libgcc was somewhat
> difficult.
>
> In the end I
> had to modify libgcj.spec, replacing -lgcj with
> /usr/local/lib/libgcj.a. This produced the desired
> result but it is unclear to me if this is the
> "correct" way to do such a thing. Thoughts?
>  
This isn't really a supported configuration. I would expect that linking 
libgcj.a into a .so would not work because libgcj.a is not built as PIC 
code. But I guess you can tweak the build to make a PIC libgcj.a.

> Question 2: 
> As an alternative to the results from Question 1 I
> would also like to ship the library with dynamic links
> to libgcj.so and libgcc.so. Can I do this? Can I also
> ship the actual libgcj.so and libgcc.so binaries on
> which the library will depend?
>  
Sure, there is no reason why you can't do this. The exception statement 
does not differentiate between shared and static linking.

Bryce