Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> Here is my understanding of the LGPL.  Since ancient times, one has been
> perfectly free to do whatever one likes *on top of* a LGPL library, i.e.
> linking to it.  There is no 'exception' required, that's why it's the
> LGPL not the GPL.  The only stipulation is you must redistribute the
> source code *of the LGPL library* along with your proprietary stuff on
> top of it.  Your proprietary stuff can be completely and utterly closed.

Well, they changed the LGPL a while back to make it a little more 
complicated.  Not only do you have to distribute the source of the 
library you changed, but you also have to distribute *your object code* 
in a way that someone can then modify the LGPL library and relink it 
with the code you have written, creating a new executable.  I'm 
paraphrasing, but I think that's what it boils down to roughly.

It's not the worst thing imaginable, but it dulls any interest many 
commercial developers might have in using an LGPL'd library.  The 
'exception' that he's talking about removes this additional requirement, 
making it as you originally describe.

Xavier will undoubtable be pleased to see another licensing discussion 
on the list.  The way these things usually work out, someone will soon 
suggest that a 'BSD' license is really the way to go, then we'll see 
about 30 rabid posts arguing the situation from both sides, repeating 
the same arguments that they did 3 months ago when it last broke out.

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners