> Actually that isn't Wouter's problem. The problem is that the JAL
> infrastructure doesn't have a mechanism for the separation of the library
> code vs. the applications code. The LGPL dictates that users have the right
> to update their libraries. In a DLL style situation that's easy enough because

The problem is that small embedded processors (such as PICs) rarely have
provision for linkable libraries. Many don't even have provision for
upgradable firmware.

> the library is in a separate package. But JAL must compile the library in.
> Because of this the only way to meet the library update requirement is to have
> the source code of the application so that the application can be recompiled
> with the new library. Thus defeating the primary difference between the LGPL
> and the GPL.

Yes. We need something better for embedded systems. Similar to the LGPL,
but a bit looser. An LLGPL?  :)

> But I can see where the FSF is coming from too because once you weaken that
> requirement, then the end user is locked into the binary offered with no
> ability to update the supposedly free library.

On the other hand, most of these licenses are aimed at programmers. Most
users won't upgrade just *part* of an embedded system.
--
D. Jay Newman           !
jay@sprucegrove.com     ! Xander: Giles, don't make cave-slayer unhappy.
http://enerd.ws/robots/ !

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu