LGPL clarification

[Bryan George]

Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>    >    - Assuming I'm interpreting the LGPL text correctly, are there any
>    >    reasonable circumstances under which a company might be able to develop
>    >    and deploy a binary executable without being subject to the stated
>    >    conditions?
>    >
>    > Distribute your package as a shared library.
> 
>    Sure, and all that has to happen then is for every company developing
>    embedded systems to design a dynamic linker into their next-generation
>    products.  I'm sure they'd be happy to comply. %b
> 
> I didn't realize that this was for an embedded system.  The LGPL won't
> help you.

I'm not thinking of any specific cases - not yet, anyway - but yes,
embedded systems would come into the mix as well as desktop platforms.

At any rate, I think this particular discussion thread is largely
academic.  In the .com world, you have to make a strong case to convince
management that it's worth employing a library that places ANY
restrictions on ANY proprietary program that uses it under ANY
circumstances.  Especially in large companies where existing
infrastructure works just fine, thank you, that's more trouble and
career risk than the average engineer is willing to accept.

> Ian

Bryan