License clarification (relating to libulz)

[therontarigo]

tinycpp has standard MIT license terms, but uses three header files from libulz, which is available under LGPL license.

It appears to be true that from libulz headers, tinycpp

uses only numerical parameters, data structure layouts and accessors, and small macros and small inline functions (ten lines or less in length)

(LGPL Version 2.1 Terms and Conditions Section 5, paragraph 4), in which case LGPL adds no restrictions to tinycpp. Is this the case?

Otherwise, tinycpp object code would be effectively LGPL, which is why I'm asking for clarification. A relicensing of the three libulz headers themselves to MIT (which is LPGL-compatible) would resolve this most simply.

[rofl0r]

i've been meaning to replace the hashtable implementation used in tinycpp for a while, that's why i didn't make a move yet. but you're right, the headers should be using MIT too. i'll see what i can do.