Picking a license

[Patrick Maupin]

On May 13, 10:07 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l... at 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