Thinking about what's missing in our library coverage

Simon Marlow marlowsd at
Thu Aug 6 06:28:47 EDT 2009

On 06/08/2009 10:26, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
>> Perhaps the community could come up with a standard boilerplate static
>> linking exemption that we could all use?
> HaXml uses:
> As a relaxation of clause 6 of the LGPL, the copyright holders of this
> library give permission to use, copy, link, modify, and distribute,
> binary-only object-code versions of an executable linked with the
> original unmodified Library, without requiring the supply of any
> mechanism to modify or replace the Library and relink (clauses 6a,
> 6b, 6c, 6d, 6e), provided that all the other terms of clause 6 are
> complied with.

What's the reasoning for dropping 6a-e, but retaining "provided that all 
the other terms of clause 6 are complied with"?  That leaves, amongst 
other things:

   For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the
Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for
reproducing the executable from it.  However, as a special exception,
the materials to be distributed need not include anything that is
normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major
components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on
which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies
the executable.

So I don't think I understand how to comply with this.  What "data and 
utility programs" must I supply with a work that uses the library?  And 
why?  The licensee is absolved from having to supply the executable in a 
way that it can be re-linked with a modified library, so what is the 
purpose of this part of the license?

The other LGPL exception you quoted (from OCaml?) omits the whole of 
clause 6, which seems a lot simpler.


More information about the Libraries mailing list