LGPL v2 section 6 loophole?

[Janez Pers]

Sitaram Chamarty wrote:

 >   - "...so that the user can modify the Library and then relink to
 > produce a modified executable containing the modified Library"
 >
 >   - "...include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing
 > the executable from it"
 >
 > all these are fine, but there seems to be nothing precluding the
 > closed source app from refusing to run with a modified LGPL library!
 > You're only assuring that an executable is produced, not that this
 > executable can be run and will behave substantially the same as the
 > original one

You absolutely cannot demand that. New library may make certain
interfaces obsolete or change API specs - what you demand is that the
author of the closed source app continuously develops and adapts
the closed source library, and releases new app whenever a library
is modified. This way, LGPL author could cause every user of LGPL
code to be in breach of the license whenever he pleases.

I suspect (although I don't know) the LGPL wording was weaseled to 
essentially protect the LGPL code (from unlicensed use) more than
protects its users from sticking with obsolete code. (Even though the 
spirit of GPL is opposite and GPL (not LGPL) provisions are geared 
primarily towards protecting the users.)

In any case, the net effect of LGPL is that (if you obey the
license) at least everyone is aware what you used in your code
and what flaws it may contain.

usual disclaimer: this is solely personal opinion, not advice.