Subject: Re: [boost] Can a Boost library use a component like GMP and mfpr that have a LGPL license ?
From: Schrader, Glenn (gschrad_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-23 14:38:15
> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]
> On Behalf Of Sebastian Redl
> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 2:01 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] Can a Boost library use a component like GMP and mfpr
> that have a LGPL license ?
> > Huh, they basically exclude copy protection in the terms of their
> They require that it is still possible to debug the LGPLed library in
> the context of the combined work. If there's a debugger killer as part
> of the copy protection (and every effective CP needs one), that's
> obviously not possible.
I assume you are referring to the "Combined Works" section of the LPGL. This is the only paragraph I can find containing the string "debug".
* 4. Combined Works.
* You may convey a Combined Work under terms of your choice that,
* taken together, effectively do not restrict modification of the
* portions of the Library contained in the Combined Work and
* reverse engineering for debugging such modifications, if you
* also do each of the following:
The term "Library" means "the library that is licensed under the LGPL". Note that the wording says >debugging< and NOT a >debugger<. Debugging can be carried out in different ways. For instance, the library can be instrumented using printf/cout. While the ability to run a debugger is certainly convenient, I fail to see how this mandates it. Some may object to the reverse engineering clause but its only an issue if reverse engineering is actually needed. If you say up front how you use the library then there should be no need to reverse engineer anything.
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk