Xref: utzoo gnu.g++.help:323 comp.lang.c++:11118
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!AI.MIT.EDU!rms
From: rms@AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman)
Newsgroups: gnu.g++.help,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Reverse engineering and LGPL
Message-ID: <9101132125.AA22680@mole.ai.mit.edu>
Date: 13 Jan 91 21:25:11 GMT
Sender: daemon@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Followup-To: gnu.g++.help
Organization: Gatewayed from the GNU Project mailing list help-g++@prep.ai.mit.edu
Lines: 23

The idea of paragraph 6 of the LGPL is that people should be able to
change the library, recompile it, and relink the proprietary program
with it.

If the terms for the proprietary program don't permit modification,
this won't be allowed.  So the terms must permit it.

If the user wants to debug the modified program, since there's no
source except for the library itself, the only way to look at the rest
(the callers of library functions, etc) is by disassembling it, as any
debugger will do.

If the terms for the proprietary program don't permit disassembly
("reverse engineering), this won't be allowed.  So the terms
must permit it.


The purpose of the FSF is to promote the freedom to share and change
software.  The only "price" the FSF wants to get for the *use* of
software is respect for this freedom--in this case, the freedom to
change the library that's used in an application program.  Offering
something else--money-back guarantees, or whatever--*instead* of
freedom is missing the point.