[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > However, his last comment <You seem to forgot "provided that the terms > permit" bit> sent me once again to look closely at the LGPL text and > there I read: > > ----------- START QUOTE ------------ > 6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine 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. > ----------- END QUOTE ------------ > > Well... if I *dynamically* link to the library, is it considered > "combine or link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to > produce a work containing portions of the Library" ? > > If so, then the 4 conditions that I listed in my last message as > complying with the LGPL license are not enough: I must also provide > "terms that permit modification of the work for the customer's own use > and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications." > > Which means that I have to grant my customers access to my source > code???
No. The work in this case are the binaries. You must not prohibit the user from patching the binaries and digging around in them: otherwise, he could be kept from updating the LGPLed library in some cases. But while you must not prohibit the user from doing so, you need not help him (and the source code would be helpful for that purpose). -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
