LGPL clarification

[Ken Arromdee]

On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Bryan George 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.  ...
> > > 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.

RMS's analysis is not directly about the GPL, but about what "derivative
work" means.  If he's correct, he's correct independently of the actual
license; *any* license that restricts derivative works will be triggered,
whether GPL (readline), LGPL, or otherwise.