[Replying to msg106566]

> if you're already looking at issue6715, then I don't get why you're
> asking.. ;)

Can you please submit a contributor form?


> Martin: For LGPL (or even GPL for that matter, disregarding linking
> restrictions) libraries you don't have to distribute the sources of
> those libraries at all (they're already made available by others, so
> that would be quite overly redundant, uh?;). LGPL actually doesn't
> even care at all about the license of your software as long as you
> only dynamically link against it.

Of course you do. Quoting from the LGPL

"You may convey a Combined Work ... if you also do each of the following:
 ...
 d) Do one of the following:
    0) Convey the Minimal Corresponding Source under the terms of this 
       License, and the Corresponding Application Code in a form 
       suitable for, and under terms that permit, the user to recombine 
       or relink the Application with a modified version of the Linked 
       Version to produce a modified Combined Work, in the manner 
       specified by section 6 of the GNU GPL for conveying 
       Corresponding Source.
    1) [not applicable to Windows]
"

> I don't really get what the issue would be even if liblzma were still
> LGPL, it doesn't prohibit you from distributing a dynamically linked
> library along with python either if necessary (which of course would
> be of convenience on win32..)..

Of course I can distribute a copy of an lzma DLL. However, I would have to provide ("convey") a copy of the source code of that DLL as well.