Questions about license exemption to LGPL 3

[John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>]

Hi folks,

I would like to release a library under the LGPL v3.  However, this
library is written in Haskell, which does not currently have dynamic
linking facilities.  I do not wish to require distribution of source
code to applications that use the library.  In this sense, it puts me
in the same situation as OCaml, which uses LGPL v2.

OCaml has this exception to LGPL v2:

  As a special exception to the GNU Library General Public License, you 
  may link, statically or dynamically, a "work that uses the Library"
  with a publicly distributed version of the Library to produce an
  executable file containing portions of the Library, and distribute
  that executable file under terms of your choice, without any of the
  additional requirements listed in clause 6 of the GNU Library General
  Public License.  By "a publicly distributed version of the Library",
  we mean either the unmodified Library as distributed by INRIA, or a
  modified version of the Library that is distributed under the
  conditions defined in clause 3 of the GNU Library General Public
  License.  This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons
  why the executable file might be covered by the GNU Library General
  Public License.

Since I am using LGPL v3, I would need something a bit different.  I
am thinking of something along these lines:

  As a special exception to the GNU Lesser General Public License
  version 3, you may convey to a third party an executable file from a
  Combined Work that links, statically or dynamically, portions of
  this Library in the executable file, conveying the Minimal
  Corresponding Source but without the need to convey the
  Corresponding Application Code under section 4d0 of the GNU Lesser
  General Public License, so long as you are using an unmodified
  publicly distributed version of the Library.  This exception does
  not invalidate any other reasons why the executable file might be
  covered by the GNU Lesser General Public License or the GNU General
  Public License.

What do you think?  Does this achieve my narrow goal adequately,
without restricting it, or opening up other loopholes?

Thanks,

-- John