Comments on: Microsoft’s Extend-and-Extinguish with ActiveX is Blowing Up in Rival Vendors’ Faces http://techrights.org/2009/07/29/proprietary-web-activex-fail/ Free Software Sentry – watching and reporting maneuvers of those threatened by software freedom Tue, 03 Jan 2017 04:31:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.14 By: Yuhong Bao http://techrights.org/2009/07/29/proprietary-web-activex-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-71587 Thu, 30 Jul 2009 03:32:27 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/?p=15754#comment-71587 Actually, though in general what I just said about patching LGPL libraries is true, in the case of ATL properly patching the hole may require modification to the source code of the programs linking with ATL.
The changes needed were documented in this page from MSDN:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/visualc/ee309358.aspx

]]> By: Yuhong Bao http://techrights.org/2009/07/29/proprietary-web-activex-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-71586 Thu, 30 Jul 2009 03:25:46 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/?p=15754#comment-71586 On the matter of patching libraries like what MS just did with ATL, the LGPL requires that anyone be able to modify LGPL libraries linked into a program, regardless of whether that program is proprietary or free software. This way, if you want or need to patch a library (say to patch security vulnerabilities), you don’t have to wait for the vendor to relink the program.

]]>