Thinking about what's missing in our library coverage

[Simon Marlow]

On 06/08/2009 15:18, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
>> No, not at all - the licensee of the library is the person statically
>> linking the library into their executable and distributing it. The
>> license specifically governs their obligations.
>
> Oh, my mistake, yes you are right. However I believe the whole para is
> just a clarification of 6(a).
>
>> Suppose I want to distribute an executable statically linked with
>> HaXml, what do I have to do to comply with clause 6?
>
> My reading of the phrase "any data and utility programs needed for
> reproducing the executable from it" is that you may not attempt to get
> round the requirements of the license by providing the proprietary parts
> of your software in a format that requires the use of special tools
> (like a linker) that are not otherwise freely available. This might also
> be intended to exclude techniques like encryption, unless you supply the
> key etc.
>
> So, in the specific case of HaXml, there is no additional burden on you.

Ok.  Might it be clearer if the LGPL exception stated that this 
paragraph is also excluded, along with 6(a)-6(e)?

Cheers,
	Simon