GPL and LGPL issues for LCC, or lack thereof

[Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com>]

Michael K. Edwards wrote:

Agreed there needn't be development tools on the target system.  But
the development system itself needs to be fully and accurately
specified, both among the participating distros and to the end users. 
That's what it takes to satisfy the letter of the GPL, at least as I
read it
  

The particular GPL text concerning the development system is:

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it.  For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable.  However, as a
special exception, the source code distributed need not include
anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable.

This does not require specification of the development environment. It does define that scripts used to control compilation and installation, such as shell scripts and makefiles related to that particular project/, would be considered source code.

Note that if Distro X distributes both NonFreeWareApp and glibc, and
only offers technical support on NonFreeWareApp to those who don't
recompile their glibc, then Distro X's right to distribute glibc under
the LGPL is automatically revoked.

The word "support" does not appear in the LGPL. What I do see is:

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope.

This would imply that support is outside the scope of the license. I don't see any language in the LGPL specifying a support obligation of any kind.

    Thanks

    Bruce