Also sprach Daniel Berlin: > However, let me ask *you* a question. > Why do you rely on the example instead of the actual clause from that > part of the conditions? > You realize the example has roughly no legal effect, right? It does > not add or modify the terms and conditions of the license.
I'm a spec guy, not a lawyer. When we write specs, we typically insert specific examples that help clarify the more general conditions in the text. Often, an example will describe a common scenario and state, in simple terms, the outcome. To me, it seems that the LGPL is written the same way. The first two sentences of #11 are general conditions. The third sentence contains a specific example to help clarify what the more general conditions say. Current specs typically state that the examples are non-normative, while the general statements are normative. I do not know if the same rules apply to legal licenses -- LGPL itself doesn't say. As to your question: I'm not really "relying" on anything. I've merely said that I don't understand your interpretation of #11. > You guys would probably be less confused if you actually stuck to the terms > of the license instead of trying to parse the examples :) The example in #11 seems fairly clear. Do you see any incompatibilities between the example text and the general clauses? Cheers, -h&kon Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª howc...@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome