u-x417_at_aetey.se writes:

> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 02:00:32PM -0500, Jan Harkes wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 06:55:25PM +0100, u-x417_at_aetey.se wrote:
>> > My motivation for the question below is the desire to use rwcdb with/for
>> > permissively licensed software without imposing the extra constraints
>> > stemming from LGPL.
>> 
>> What extra constraints does it impose? The LGPL doesn't taint software
>
> By definition a license is a constraint (list of conditions to be
> fulfilled) on the usage.

Practically, yes, but strictly a license is a grant of affirmative
permissions under some conditions; without a license all things that are
reserved to the copyrigth holder may not be done (modulo fair use).
However, this doensn't bear on your point.

> Please do not assume that it is ignorance which leads people
> to question the license :)
>
> LGPL explicitly says that certain things are a must and other things
> are not allowed.

It would be helfup to articular the things you want to do that aren't
possible...

> Thus, I humbly ask if you would be kind to allow the use of rwcdb
> without the limitations of LGPL (like the linking mode choice, the source
> delivery obligations and other constraints which can be noticeable for
> someone else, like the prohibition of extra restrictions).

I don't think this ease for some users can be separated from the overall
social construction of copyleft.  That's why licensing is unvaoidably
hard.