LGPL vs. GPL + Classpath Exception

[Matthew Flaschen]

Bruce Alspaugh wrote:
>> However, the license must allow /private/
>> modification, and reverse-engineering.  It says "the terms permit
>> modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse
>> engineering for debugging such modifications."  That's a pretty low
>> standard of freedom, but apparently it still makes people uncomfortable
>> so Classpath has no such constraint.
>>
>> Matthew Flaschen
>>
>>   
> OK, so code that links with the LGPL has to be distributed with a
> license that allows private reverse-engineering.  However, there is no
> requirement to provide any kind of assistance for reverse-engineering,

Definitely not.

> or make such reverse-engineering easy.  For example, object code that
> links with an LGPL library can be obfuscated, correct?

I believe so, but again the license must actually allow it; it can not
be prohibited in the EULA.

> Are there any other practical differences?

Also, LGPL requires that either the source code of the LGPL library be
provided with the program, a "suitable shared library mechanism for
linking with the Library" is used (.class files should qualify), or
there is a written offer for the library source.  See section 6 of the
LPGL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html) for details.

Matt Flaschen