If crate A
is LGPL-licensed, and B is its dependent (B uses A), could B be MIT-licensed?
I read the original text of LGPLv3, and in its Q&A, it said:
Does the LGPL have different requirements for statically vs dynamically linked modules with a covered work? (#LGPLStaticVsDynamic)
For the purpose of complying with the LGPL (any extant version: v2, v2.1 or v3): (1) If you statically link against an LGPLed library, you must also provide your application in an object (not necessarily source) format, so that a user has the opportunity to modify the library and relink the application. (2) If you dynamically link against an LGPLed library already present on the user's computer, you need not convey the library's source. On the other hand, if you yourself convey the executable LGPLed library along with your application, whether linked with statically or dynamically, you must also convey the library's sources, in one of the ways for which the LGPL provides.
In most cases, Rust crates are statically linked.
So, how could I "provide my application in an object (not necessarily source) format, so that a user has the opportunity to modify the library and relink the application"?
And, is there any famous project which has to statically link to a LGPL-licensed library and it is MIT-licensed (or Apache-2.0)?
What I understand is that:
- If crate A
is LGPL-licensed, and Bis its dependent (B uses A), B has to be LGPL-licensed.
Is this correct?