LGPL clarification

[Bryan George]

Ken Arromdee wrote:
> 
> On 1 Nov 2000, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > The LGPL puts restrictions on P when it is linked with L.  But so
> > what?  That linking will only happen on the end user system.  The
> > typical effect is that the end user is not permitted to distribute the
> > executable now found in memory, because it is impossible to satisfy
> > both the conditions of the vendor of P and the conditions of the LGPL.
> >
> > But the LGPL puts no restrictions on the distribution of P, which is
> > what the proprietary user cares about.
> 
> That is not, however, what RMS believes.  If there is only one shared library
> that exists, he considers P to be derivative of it even before it is linked;
> and this triggers all licensing conditions on L even if P is not distributed
> with L.  Remember readline?

Readline is GPL'd, not LGPL'd, though, so I'm not sure how that applies
in the present discussion.

The LGPL does seem to be remarkably vague about the definitions and
implications of linking, yes?

Bryan