Thank you, Google found the pdf for me :). I am going to read the pdf in detail, but skipping to the conclusion the author only states:
Even so,this article has shown that the clarifications made by the LLGPL to the original GNU license are largely unnecessary, and that the LGPL would probably be interpreted in a similar fashion withoutthe clarifications proposed by the LLGPL.
The useage of the words "largely" and "probably" would make me less confident of the verdict, that the LGPL is enough.
On a different angle: I checked Numpy and it is using a BSD-license. What was your motivation to license your library differently? Is your library derived from Numpy or just implementing the same api? A BSD-style license would make any technical issues - both legal and actual distribution of the product - just go away.
The "largely" and "probably" are the mentions to the fact that there aren't yet legal cases concerning LLGPL. I am not an expert in law, but given that the journal is peer-reviewed, I will give some credit. https://www.ifosslr.org/index.php/ifosslr/about/editorialPol...
A BSD-style license does not protect contributions/changes to the library so it follows that it is not a drop-in replacement for LGPL.
Multiple people have told you that there are no technical issues with LGPL applied to Lisp programs but of course you may persist in thinking so. Do not expect others to share your anxieties though, particularly when it comes to deciding which license to use for their code.
A BSD-style license does not protect contributions/changes to the library so it follows that it is not a drop-in replacement for LGPL.
I suggested a BSD-style license, as it would resolve any possible legal problems and is actually the license of the library that was cloned. I asked the author, whether he could name a concrete reason why he switched his work to a different license than the original library, which I would find an appropriate default.
Multiple people have told you that there are no technical issues with LGPL applied to Lisp programs but of course you may persist in thinking so. Do not expect others to share your anxieties though, particularly when it comes to deciding which license to use for their code.
How many of those people are lawyers? Law isn't decided by a majority vote. I am a professional programmer working with far too many lawyers to do my work. Calling my concerns about the legal technicalities of a licence "anxieties" is quite inappropriate.
