glib dependency for the X Server

[Greg Stark]

Alan Cox <alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes:

> > In Eric's proposal Glib gets linked into the X server: you need it to 
> > run the server.
> > This is not at all the case with the C compiler (or with autotools and 
> > other [L]GPL like code already used).
> 
> It appears nobody in this discussion has ever looked at the things they
> are discussing, which is a bit worrying given what is being discussed.
> The GNU C compiler does indeed link compiler related code into the X
> server and that code, like all code, is licensed.

As does bison and flex and other tools X uses. However in these cases these
tools have licenses that explicitly cover that code and have pretty much
unrestricted grants. The license in question is not at all similar to the
LGPL.

> The LGPL v BSD aspect of it appears to be pure politics.

Do any of the closed X server vendors currently ship statically linked
executables? How would they feel about having to provide linkable objects so
the user can relink the X server with a new version of the library?

-- 
greg