[critic]

No. Whose object code? Is it talking about my object code or the library's?

Ten lines per function, per header, per library, per program?

Edit: I think you didn't understand LGPL yourself either. I think in the quoted lines, "object code" refers to your code, and accompanying them with a copy of GPL refers to having to release your code under GPL. Or do you think you only have to say you release it under GPL and not actually release it?

[azanar]

The object code is the aggregate of your code and the library's header code.

If you have just your object code, you are not bound by the license of the library, then you don't need to include it.

If you have just the library header code, then you are not incorporating it into anything else, and have no obligations by the license.

If you have both the library header code incorporated into your object code , then you are bound by the license to provide attribution along with that incorporated object code.

As for you second question, I'd guess lines per file. But it is a bit ambiguous, as almost all legalese is. Again, you could just err toward caution, and include the license text regardless. Are you averse to this for some reason?

Oh, and as per the wiki link, object code is the compiled binary of your source code. At this point, whatever headers you included would already be integrated.

[critic]

By accompanying your object code with GPL/LGPL, you are promising your customers that your code is GPL/LGPL, i.e. you will be bound to open your code.

The fact that your understanding of the license is different shows just how sneaky and obfuscated LGPL is.

[arebop]

If that were true, why would would the FSF say that "using the Lesser GPL permits use of the library in proprietary programs; using the ordinary GPL for a library makes it available only for free programs" [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html]? The LGPL is not designed to trick you into using the moral equivalent of the GPL; it's designed to occupy the middle ground between GPL and BSD licenses.

[critic]

Nonsense.

> Lesser GPL permits use of the library in proprietary programs

That means "in some cases", not "in all cases". Logical fallacy on your part.

> ordinary GPL for a library makes it available only for free programs

Here, GPL'ers contradict themselves (for both senses of "free"). GPL code can, technically, be non-gratis. And GPL code can be used in non-GPL programs (you just can't distribute them easily).

[gjm11]

I think you're entirely wrong about the "copy of the GPL" business. The LGPL consists of the GPL plus a bunch of extra stuff. The LGPL document found e.g. at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html lists only the extra stuff. Therefore, whenever it imposes any requirement to distribute a copy of the licence, it says "a copy of the GNU GPL and this license document". That's all. If there were a requirement to distribute your stuff under the terms of the (not-L)GPL, then it would say so. (Merely distributing a copy of the GPL along with your code would not put the code under that licence.)

Those terms to which you object mean, I think, the following: If your object code includes bits of the library header files, and if those bits are substantial, then you have to (1) say that you're using the library, (2) say what licence the library is covered by, and (3) include a copy of the documents that define that licence.