Thinking about what's missing in our library coverage

[Malcolm Wallace]

On 6 Aug 2009, at 11:28, Simon Marlow wrote:

> What's the reasoning for dropping 6a-e, but retaining "provided that  
> all the other terms of clause 6 are complied with"?

The specific para you quote starts "For an executable", and we are  
talking about libraries here, so it is inapplicable.

> The other LGPL exception you quoted (from OCaml?) omits the whole of  
> clause 6, which seems a lot simpler.

Clause 6 also includes the following terms, which you did not quote,  
and which I think are highly pertinent to retain:
As an exception to the Sections above, you may also compile or link a  
"work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work  
containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work under  
terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of  
the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for  
debugging such modifications. You must give prominent notice with each  
copy of the work that the Library is used in it and that the Library  
and its use are covered by this License. You must supply a copy of  
this License.  If the work during execution displays copyright  
notices, you must include the copyright notice for the Library among  
them, as well as a reference directing the user to the copy of this  
License.

Regards,
     Malcolm