Yes, but with GTK on the non-linux platforms, you either have to deliver it as DLLs, thus breaking the single-file executable, or (try to) statically bind but open source your project due to the infectious LGPL.
True, but this is one place Xojo really is the easiest.
Agree, though PB is arguably still somewhat more Windows-first, as illustrated here and throughout the documentation where you will find more than a few (Windows only) caveats.
Quite right, LGPL allows you static binding your proprietary, non-free software against free software without any Copyleft.
Regarding “infectious” - oh come on, it’s 2025… proprietary software is in decline, you see it everywhere.
I’ll assume best intent and kindly offer a few clarifications:
Quite right, LGPL allows you static binding your proprietary, non-free software against free software without any Copyleft.
– This isn’t quite right. Copyleft still applies and you still must allow the user to relink the LGPL-covered portion. One way to do this is to provide all of the linkable object files so they can swap out the LGPL piece and relink. This is essentially never done and probably would rarely work in practice for a sufficiently complex build. More commonly, the LGPL portion is provided as a DLL and dynamically linked to the propriety code, which still allows it to be replaced by the user. Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation
proprietary software is in decline,
– This is factually incorrect. By all accounts, the proprietary software market’s growth is accelerating. Software - Worldwide | Statista Market Forecast , Software Market Size To Reach USD 2,248.33 Billion By 2034 , Market Share Analysis: Enterprise Software, Worldwide, 2023
you see it everywhere.
– Sounds like “people say…” Better just to stick to the facts.
Regarding “infectious” - oh come on, it’s 2025
– “Open source” >> (is much greater than) GPL-like “free” software. To infer that someone is against the whole of open source or doesn’t recognize its value in the ecosystem because you also inferred from the use of the descriptive term “infectious” that they might not agree with the GPL, is false reasoning.
Your are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts:
infectious” is commonly used in legal discussions of GPL-type license
We are still talking about LGPL, not GPL right?
Copyleft still applie and you still must allow the user to relink the LGPL-covered portion.
This is a false statement. Of course you can link your non-free software against any LGPL licensed lib. Better check:
Furthermore you re wildly mixing some terms ignoting the facts that “Enterprise Software” is a larger set for both non-free, proprietary software and free software. Do you lnow how much e.g. libcurl is integrated in “Enterprise Software”? Have you ever noticed on every piece of hard- or software where EULAs referencing free software? MacOS, iOS, Android and even Windows would not exist without free software.
Of course is proprietary software in decline. Don’t you use the Internet? Any mobile device or IoT? Almost 90% of the workload is done by free software.
I am working since 2007 without any proprietary Microsoft Software and since 2017 without proprietary Apple Software. The last decade I am migrating companies to free software on Servers and Desktops.
The portion of the wikipedia article you cite explicitly says
Essentially, if it is a “work that uses the library”, then it must be possible for the software to be linked with a newer version of the LGPL-covered program. The most commonly used method for doing so is to use “a suitable shared library mechanism for linking”. Alternatively, a statically linked library is allowed if either source code or linkable object files are provided
which, in practice, eliminates the possibility of statically linking
Providing linkable object files is terribly troublesome since even different versions of the same compilers may not use object files from other versions (VS and Xcode have had this issue - no idea about gcc)
And providing source would render your “proprietary software” not proprietary
Thank you, Norman. I appreciate your having weighed in on that point. And thank you for splitting this off from the discussion of Purebasic, on which we appear to agree.
Those weren’t my facts or opinions; I cited the actual license text, not the first paragraph of a wikipedia article. We’ll leave that as an indicator of the rest.
Another wikipedia article: Argument from anecdote - Wikipedia
I like the IDEA of “free software”
Not the idea of imposing my will, or my licensing preferences, on someone else
Which is why I tend to dislike the GPL (LGPL etc) and most of my software that I make available is 100% source code under very permissive licenses like MIT, 3 clause BSD, etc
To me that is more “free” than any GPL license
But thats just my opinion