Re: [tlug] A semi-related question

["Kenneth" <emry@example.com>]

>>>>>> "Kenneth" == Kenneth  <emry@example.com> writes:
> That is exactly what the LGPL does.  It _is_ the GPL, except that
> instead of claiming the full scope of derivatives available under law
> (what is often call "the exec(2) boundary"), it claims only the
> compilation unit.  It doesn't matter whether the linking is dynamic or
> static.
>
> I don't know what happens with macro libraries, though.  It seems to
> me that including a macro library would prima facie make your work a
> direct derivative of the macro library, but RMS says not.


I've been looking at the LGPL... And as long as I don't want to compile
licensed code directly into the finished work, it would work. :-)

Also, macros.. That is covered under the LGPL.  As long as they are 10
lines or less, they don't exist for purposes of the LGPL. i.e. Inline
functions, definitions, and macros in a header file are fair game as long
as they are not over 10 lines in length.  This is assuming that the code
is just copy and pasted.  I think that is basically assuming that such
lines of code are short enough, and basic enough, that most programmers
would come up with the same, or similar code on their own.

:-)