CGAL users discussion list

[Patric Schmitz <>]

On 02/12/2016 06:29 AM, Maria Dubrovskaya wrote:
> Concerning the 2nd point from my mail you didn't get completely,
> I meant providing the last chosen CGAL features' versions
> integration support. I read about it somewhere in a forum.

Hmm I still don't know what you're referring to and can't find
anything on 'CGAL versions integration support'. What is this
supposed to be, some dynamic functionality loading / plugin
mechanism? Or something that has to to with forward-compatible
API? I can only be guessing, but I think the answer to your
question 2. is no, regarding the licensing implications from
using CGAL in your application.

> Probably it concerned the FAQ you sent to me
> (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic).
> By the way, the 1st point of the FAQ is what I don't get quite well.
> If I understand correctly, I must build my application with
> dynamical linking as well to allow user link against my application?
> But my application doesn't a priori support the newer library
> version, so that may just never work...
> Do you see the sense of this?

Applications cannot be linked against. The point this FAQ entry
clarifies is about your question 4. wether you can link against
CGAL statically. It says that you either link dynamically against
the library, which is typically the case, and that does *not*
impose any restrictions on your application.

If you link statically against CGAL, you are required to supply
your application's .o files so that the user is able to relink
with a different version of the library, as he would be by just
swawpping in another shared object file if using dynamic linking.

This does not (necessarily) relate to newer versions of the
library. It could just as well be a modified version of the same
library version (or any other ABI-compatible version) which
retains the user's right to modify the LGPL code your application
is making use of.

I hope this makes things clearer for you.

Best,
Patric