Re: Confused about LGPL terms - can you help?

[xp_newbie]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
> Beware that the FSF (including their fierce legal acumen Eben) disagrees
> with uncle Hasler, xp_newbie.
>
> http://web.novalis.org/talks/compliance-for-developers/slide-49.html
> http://web.novalis.org/talks/compliance-for-developers/slide-75.html
>
> Your only way out (in the GNU Republic) is
>
> http://web.novalis.org/talks/compliance-for-developers/slide-54.html
>
> Surrender to freedom or else!
>

Alexander, I must admit that when I first read the links you provided,
I got even more confused. But then, I noticed that all of these links
refer to GPL, not LGPL.  :)

If I understand the spirit of LGPL correctly (as laid out in its
preamble), its aim is to facilitate the use of open-source libraries
even in commercial products, without loosing its open-source property.

In my search for answers to my confusion, I encountered an LGPL library
which comes with a LICENSE file (in addition to the LGPL ver. 2
'COPYING' one) that reads:

---------- START QUOTE ---------
Can I use LAME in my commercial program?

Yes, you can, under the restrictions of the LGPL.  The easiest
way to do this is to:

1. Link to LAME as separate library (libmp3lame.a on unix or
   lame_enc.dll on windows)

2. Fully acknowledge that you are using LAME, and give a link
   to our web site, www.mp3dev.org

3. If you make modifications to LAME, you *must* release these
   these modifications back to the LAME project, under the LGPL.
---------- END QUOTE ---------

The above 3 terms look to me so much easier to understand than the full
LGPL ver. 2 text... but do they really reflect the conditions of LGPL?

That is, if:

1. I link to the library *dynamically* and

2. I *do not modify* the library in any way and

3. I fully acknowledge that I am using that library

4. I include the library (in a DLL form) in the installation package
(as a separate file), while offering the source code to that library
(only), but not offering the source code to my own program (which calls
the library)

Do I comply with the LGPL license?

Thanks,
Alex