David Brown wrote:
And as I understand the LGPL, if you link staticly to an LGPL library, you have to release your source (as GPL or LGPL) - the LGPL is designed for dynamic libraries linked to closed source, which is fine for pc's and other "big" systems. For embedded systems (assuming you don't want to open-source your app), you have to stick to BSD or modified (L)GPL code, as used by the mspgcc library.
You can fulfil your requirements for linking against a LGPL library by releasing, on request by somebody you distributed the executable to, a set of object files with symbol information so that they can relink them against a modified version of the LGPLed library. In addition those object files can be under whatever license you want including one which does not allow redistribution. You also need to provide on request any modifications you made to the LGPLed library in source form. You are entitled to make a 'reasonable' charge for fulfilling the request.
There are also good reasons for using the modified GPL - it gives the library writers almost all of the advantages of the GPL, and users almost all the advantages of BSD-style licensing. What would be very useful would be if the FSF formulated a standard EGPL for embedded use, covering this situation and saving programmers from having to mess with the legal stuff.
IMHO the MPL is ideally suited to this type of situation. It protects the source files which you place under the MPL (including requiring that modifications to them be disclosed) but does not place any requirements on what you link them to or what you write in your advertising materials.
-- ------------ Alex Holden - http://www.linuxhacker.org ------------ If it doesn't work, you're not hitting it with a big enough hammer
