[Ecls-list] Re: License question

[Adam Warner]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 14:54:04 +0200, Goffioul Michael wrote:
> I know ECL is under LGPL and that I can distribute LISP code in binary
> format, even linked against ECL library. My current (internal) use of
> ECL is to build ECL into a static lib and use this lib to build a MEX
> file for MATLAB such that ECL is embedded into that MEX file (easier for
> me as I only have to distribute a single DLL). Is this static embedding
> allowed by LGPL?

Refer to clause 6 of the LGPL:
<http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html>

Everyone usually wants to be able to comply with 6(b). If you're not using
a suitable shared library mechanism (e.g. you're static linking) then 6(b)
does not apply to you.

Instead look at the requirements of 6(a) and the variations of it in (c),
(d) and (e). The licence requires distribution of/an offer to give/access
to/or verification of receipt of the `complete machine-readable "work that
uses the Library", as object code and/or source code, so that the user can
modify the Library and then relink to produce a modified executable
containing the modified Library.'

While this doesn't require you to reciprocally licence your work (compare
with the GPL) it does require you to disclosure (potentially sensitive)
object code and/or source code.

It's peripheral to your question but I'd like to also see discussion about
whether ECL as a matter of fact incorporates part of itself into the
shared libraries it builds. If it does so and the portions it incorporates
are copyright LGPL licensed code then it is not quite clear that the
shared libraries built by ECL can be distributed as unencumbered .so or
.DLL binaries. As a consequence 6(b) might not be an available option for
anyone using ECL.

Regards,
Adam