LGPL clarification

[Bryan George]

Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> 
>    Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 11:52:01 -0800 (PST)
>    From: Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net>
> 
>    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.

Ken, can you point to specific quotes from RMS making this analysis? 
I'd be very interested to read them.

> LGPL, section 5:
> 
>       5. A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the
>     Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or
>     linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library".  Such a
>     work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and
>     therefore falls outside the scope of this License.
> 
> I read this as saying that the LGPL specifically defines a program
> designed to work with the library as not being a derivative work in
> the context of the LGPL.

As do I, for dynamically linked executables.  But the OMAREC still seems
to apply to statically linked programs.  Even if, as I suspect, any jury
in the known universe would throw out such an arbitrary distinction
between dynamic and statically linked executables, its mere presence in
the license text is a damper.

> Ian

Again, thanks for the input.  Now comes the fun part - sending a message
to 'licensing at gnu.org' asking their opinion of a modified LGPL
essentially without Sections 5 and 6.  Flame-proof suit - on... :)

Bryan