Patrik Stridvall wrote:
Patrik,
The more I read your posts, the less I understand what you are trying to say. You argued over many hundreds of lines over weird technical details and various dubious assumptions about what courts will do in the future.
The main point is that what is legal allow is very unclear.
Hogwash. I feel the LGPL is extremely clear. It allows you to dynamically link to LGPL code without worries. Full stop.
The clearness of the LGPL in itself is a non issue. The issue in the foundation that LGPL rests on namly the doctrine of derived work.
Patrik, it might be good for you to create a web page outlining the problems you see in the LPGL; that would give you a chance to explain them more clearly than is possible in this forum. Do try to be succinct. I'd like to understand your point of view.
Hmm. I think I already spend to much time trying to explain my point of view. I would rather answer questions concerning details insteed.
Perhaps I will someday, but don't hold your breath.
-
Patrik Stridvall