Ted Dennison wrote :
> I don't think its that kind of library. The LGPL works best with run-time
> libraries (libxx.so, xx.dll, etc.); the kind of stuff that it makes sense to
> distribute separately in binary form. Many of the provisions in it make no sense
> outside of that context.

I am not a lawyer (far from that), not even a GNU lawyer. However, I used
to think that LGPL precisely does not apply to shareable libraries (.so),
but only to object libraries (.a).

When you distribute a commercial software on Linux (for instance), you do
NOT redistribute any .so file, you use the one that is on the end-user's
system. On the other hand, you redistribute part of the content of the
.a files. This is why, in my opinion, LGPL applies to .a files, while
GPL is fine for .so files.

Am I wrong?

After all, forking a process running the user's "ls" executable (under GPL)
or dynamically invoking a routine from the user's libreadline.so (also
under GPL, unlike libc.so which is under LGLP) makes no difference in
terms of software redistribution.

-Thierry
____________________________________________________________________________

Thierry Lelegard, "The Jazzing Troll", Email: thierry.lelegard@canal-plus.fr
CANAL+ Technologies, 34 place Raoul Dautry, 75906 Paris Cedex 15, France
Tel: +33 1 71 71 54 30   Fax: +33 1 71 71 52 08   Mobile: +33 6 03 00 65 75
____________________________________________________________________________