[cairo] Pango License

[Thomas Stover]

> From: Peter Clifton <pcjc2 at cam.ac.uk>
 
> Importantly though, it does allow the user to modify / bug-fix the LGPL
> library part of the system, even if they aren't afforded the rights to
> do so with other parts of the code.

Agreed. Glad this came up since I was oblivious this facet of the LGPL,
and I do a reasonable job of paying attention. 

To try to reel this thread back to the original post, apparently certain
outfits do not want to bundle Pango and other LGPL code with an
installation package for windows or osx. (not bothered by it on
environments it already exists & embedded/image distribution of doz/osx
unlikely). This conceptually stemming from working with the interpretation
that installation packages with bundled libraries are a form of static
linking, and that distribution of a "repackage" kit would circumvent
license key enforcement schemes. 

Sounds like either: 1) that is just the way the authors intended so deal
with it, 2) the FSF would need to clarify the intention of the LGPL (maybe
they have already), 3) an license exemption would need to be made, or 4)
just use a separate install package for the libraries.

Is this really a show stopper for many businesses? Why does that sound far
fetched to me?

Sorry for talking this to death.

-- 
www.thomasstover.com