On May 13, 10:07 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek- central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> How exactly does the LGPL lead to a requirement to “relink”? I think this might be a misconception, but I'm not 100% sure. Since Ed gives his customers full source code, there may not be the requirement to directly provide the ability to relink, because "The “Corresponding Application Code” for a Combined Work means the object code and/or source code for the Application." and section 4d0 requires you to "permit the user to recombine or relink" where "recombine" isn't defined directly (perhaps in the underlying GPL?) Nonetheless, all the dotting of i's and crossing of t's to satisfy section 4 and the underlying GPL probably require a lawyer to check your source code distribution. For example, what is "prominent notice"? And I love the gem at 4e: "Provide Installation Information, but only if you would otherwise be required to provide such information under section 6 of the GNU GPL, and only to the extent that such information is necessary to install and execute a modified version of the Combined Work produced by recombining or relinking the Application with a modified version of the Linked Version. (If you use option 4d0, the Installation Information must accompany the Minimal Corresponding Source and Corresponding Application Code. If you use option 4d1, you must provide the Installation Information in the manner specified by section 6 of the GNU GPL for conveying Corresponding Source.)" I mean, it's in English and very technically precise, but if you follow all the references, you quickly come to realize that the license is a "patch" to the GPL. It was deliberately made in patch format to make it smaller, but as we all know, reading source code and the accompanying patch is almost always more difficult than reading the patched source. Regards, Pat -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list