Many of the discussion you saw, is, it seems for me, related to
    alleged ambiguity of the statement "provided that the terms permit
    modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse
    engineering for debugging such modifications" in the beginning of the
    section 6. of LGPL.  People are afraid that, in the end, this clause
    forces developer to provide the source of their "work that uses the
    Library", or something making reverse engineering easy (like unstriped
    executable.)

I think this is much ado about nothing, since the LGPL explicitly says
it is sufficient to provide object files to the customer.  A court
would hardly adopt a strained interpretation of "modification for the
customer's own use" against that explicit statement.

But I will take a look at this--some day when I have time.
Unfortunately it can't be soon.  Other higher-priority issues
are ahead of it.
-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs  FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr