Re: why LGPL 2.0?

[Paul Davis <paul linuxaudiosystems com>]

>In this case, by section 5 and section 2, it requires FULL release,
>as a derivative work, and yes, requiring FULL release of the 
>executable requires the release of the source for the executable,
>even though the source itself is not a derivative work.
>
>That was my point, that's all. Yes! You're right: the final sentence: 
>"Section 6 states terms for distribution of such executables." allows you 
>to avoid doing so. Note how section 6 begins: "6. As an exception to the 
>Sections above..." 

but this such an important exception that it more or less overrides
everything else you've mentioned.

there is a lot of stuff in the LGPL that covers work done on/to the
library, and most of that looks very much the GPL. and then there is
this sweeping, broad and fundamental exception granted for work that
uses the library. yes, it still comes with some stipulations (mostly
related to relinkability). but its a complete exception granted to
anyone doing anything that is not work on/to the library itself, which
means 99% of all legitimate users/developers out there.

>That's all. I am in no way saying source code release is required. 
>All I'm saying is that ONLY section 6 removes that requirement, and 
>that you should make damn sure that your release conforms which 
>section 6 OR ELSE you will be forced to comply with section 2,
>or be in breach.

but that's what i (and others) have said all along: there are certain
stipulations that go with the LGPL: satisfy them and then no source
code release is required. ok, maybe we didn't state the corollary: if
you don't satisfy the ones in section 6, then you have to satisfy
section 2 (source release) or be in breach. i guess i assumed that
this corollary was self-evident. perhaps not.

--p