Re: Static linking under win32

[Alexander Terekhov <TEREKHOV at de dot ibm dot com>]

> I think the point of conflict is more about what people
> *percieve* LGPL to be about.

BTW, here's rather interesting review of the [L]GPL by OSI's
counsel.

http://www.phptr.com/content/images/0131487876/samplechapter/0131487876_ch06.pdf

"These sections of the LGPL are an impenetrable maze of
 technological babble. They should not be in a general-purpose
 software license. The LGPL even concedes that âthe threshold
 for this to be true is not precisely defined by law.â (LGPL
 section 5.) A licensee under these provisions wonât have a
 clue how extensive his or her good faith efforts must be when
 creating a derivative work in accordance with sections 2(d)
 and 5 of the LGPL.
 [...]
 The LGPL, therefore, is an anomaly -- a hybrid license intended
 to address a complex issue about program linking and derivative
 works. It doesnât solve that problem but merely directs us back
 to the main event, the GPL license itself."

Well, I guess the idea is to simply convert LGPL'ed works to the
"plain" GPL (the LGPL allows this) and stick to the OSI's much
more reasonable (first sale aside for a moment) interprepretation
completely ignoring FSF's politically motivated licensing
smokescreens (I mean their FAQ/quiz/essays/manifestos/etc.)

Now enjoy reading that sample chapter (and consider buying that
book as a whole ;-) ).

regards,
alexander.