> Correct. I wasn't arguing whether or not JAL should create relocatable
> objects. Just the fact that there is PIC tool technology to do so, and
> that it creates an avenue to solve the issues with the LGPL.

But that road is closed for an all-at-once compiler, so I need another
route.

And besides: the object route would make it impossible to include the
jal library in a gadget that is by (market) descision copy-protected,
which I want to allow.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads