Re: [tlug] A semi-related question

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

>>>>> "Kenneth" == Kenneth  <emry@example.com> writes:

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

I'm still not getting it.  Are there any important programming
environments left where you can't compile your own code into a
separate object for the purpose of satisfying 6a, even if you actually
distribute the work as a statically linked ready-to-run binary?  The
odds that someone who would violate any restrictions on redistribution
would balk at reverse engineering your code without permission would
look "large" to a nuclear physicist.

    Kenneth> Also, macros.. That is covered under the LGPL.  As long
    Kenneth> as they are 10 lines or less, they don't exist for
    Kenneth> purposes of the LGPL.

Yow!  I hadn't read that carefully before ... what a mess.  Inline
functions?  There's no such thing.  In all the languages I know of,
"inline" is a hint---the compiler can ignore it, or even inline
functions that don't say "inline" (cf. C++ and Common LISP).  That
means that using a smarter compiler or linker could cause you to
violate the LGPL!  What does "10 lines" mean in any language besides
semicolon-less Python?[1]  Eg, in C, ALL macros are EXACTLY one (logical)
line in length.  I could go on, but what's the point?  :-(

Sometimes I get the impression that Stallman and Moglen switch hats
when they're writing licenses!


Footnotes: 
[1]  OK, OK, you assembler fanatics....

-- 
School of Systems and Information Engineering http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.