Hallo Bernhard,
Danke für das anhaltende Interesse.
Leider habe ich es versäumt die Antwort, die ich von Brett Smith bekam (s.u.), weiter zu leiten. Entschuldigt. Dies hole ich hiermit nach.
Jetzt habe ich überstimmende Deutungen, sowohl der Entwickler der fraglichen Bibliothek als auch eines "Licencing Compliance Engineer" erhalten. Da will ich die Sache auch nicht mehr anders sehen, nur weil ich mir persönlich klarere LGPL-Formulierungen hinsichtlich meines Anwendungsfalles wünschen würde.
Kurzum: Danke.
Grüße
Frank
-------- Original-Nachricht -------- Betreff: Re: [issue651] LGPLv3,§4 and C++ pure, template library Datum: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:22:59 -0500 Von: Brett Smith brett@fsf.org Organisation: Free Software Foundation An: fmdspam@md-web.de Referenzen: 4965C675.7010809@fsfeurope.org
Frank,
But, what is about $4? Is using a header only lib, aka producing "object code incorporating material from library header files" not the same as combining works and therefore covered by paragraph 4?
It might help to think of it this way: section 3 describes a specific scenario where an application *only* uses certain materials from header files. If your application is in that situation, then it gives you permission to distribute the object code that you create provided that you meet certain conditions. If you're not in that situation, then you go on to section 4, which lets you distribute the object code under different conditions. Section 4 lists the general rules for applications; section 3 gives a special exception for specific cases.
So, if your object code is only using material from header files the way section 3 describes, then you only have to do what's listed in section 3, and you don't need to worry about section 4 at all.
Best regards,