Thinking about what's missing in our library coverage

[Simon Marlow]

On 06/08/2009 12:45, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
> 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.

No, not at all - the licensee of the library is the person statically 
linking the library into their executable and distributing it.  The 
license specifically governs their obligations.  So what is required in 
that case?  Suppose I want to distribute an executable statically linked 
with HaXml, what do I have to do to comply with clause 6?

>> 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.

Granted, it looks like you do want that bit.

Cheers,
	Simon