So, you need to convey the "Minimal Corresponding Source" (the one used to build the version in the Combined Work) according to sec.4 d) 0) or GPLv3 sec.6, mark it as modified if it is and possibly include custom tools if required by GPL's definition of "Corresponding Source". (In general, as sec.0 says, LGPLv3 is effectively GPLv3 with a few additional provisions.)
2) It might be a derivative work of the generator used as well if the latter inserts parts of itself into the code (see FSF FAQ#Can I use GPL-covered tools... to compile...?) - check the generator's workings and licensing terms if necessary. If it is, you'll have to satisfy both LGPLv3 and the generator's terms that apply to the results of its work.
Disclaimer: IANAL and if you want something "official" you should talk to one. That said...
A common-sense approach says that yes, the result of compilation of something that is compilable is a derivative work. For instance, the compiled version of an LGPL library is still LGPL - you can't say that you obtained a compiled version of the library and never compiled it yourself and somehow dodge providing the source code that way.
Thus, the LGPL would require you to distribute the (potentially modified) source of the original LGPL work, such that if an individual wanted to further modify the work, they could.
发布评论
评论（3）
1) 由于语法包含了生成代码的本质，因此它绝对属于"生成、安装和（对于可执行工作）运行目标代码和修改工作所需的所有源代码，包括控制这些活动的脚本”并且不属于“作品的系统库，或通用工具或普遍可用的免费程序，未经修改即可用于执行这些活动，但不属于工作的一部分”。简而言之，LGPLv3 适用。
因此，您需要根据 第 4 条 d) 0) 或 GPLv3 sec.6，将其标记为已修改（如果已修改），并且如果 GPL 的“对应源代码”定义需要，则可能包含自定义工具。 （一般来说，正如 sec.0 所说，LGPLv3 实际上是 GPLv3，但有一些附加条款。）
2) 如果生成器将其自身的一部分插入到代码中，它也可能是所使用生成器的衍生作品 （请参阅 FSF 常见问题解答#我可以使用GPL 覆盖的工具...编译...？) - 如果需要，请检查生成器的工作原理和许可条款。如果是，您必须同时满足 LGPLv3 和适用于其工作结果的生成器条款。
1) Since the grammar contains the essence of the resulting code, it definitely belongs to "all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities" and is not a part of "the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work". In brief, LGPLv3 applies.
So, you need to convey the "Minimal Corresponding Source" (the one used to build the version in the Combined Work) according to sec.4 d) 0) or GPLv3 sec.6, mark it as modified if it is and possibly include custom tools if required by GPL's definition of "Corresponding Source". (In general, as sec.0 says, LGPLv3 is effectively GPLv3 with a few additional provisions.)
2) It might be a derivative work of the generator used as well if the latter inserts parts of itself into the code (see FSF FAQ#Can I use GPL-covered tools... to compile...?) - check the generator's workings and licensing terms if necessary. If it is, you'll have to satisfy both LGPLv3 and the generator's terms that apply to the results of its work.
每个人都应该给您的最佳答案如下：
联系律师
The best answer, and which everyone should be giving you is as follows:
Contact a lawyer
免责声明：IANAL，如果您想要“官方”的东西，您应该与其中之一交谈。也就是说……
常识性的方法是，是的，可编译的东西的编译结果是衍生作品。例如，LGPL 库的编译版本仍然是 LGPL - 您不能说您获得了该库的编译版本并且从未自己编译过它，并且以某种方式回避以这种方式提供源代码。
因此，LGPL 会要求您分发原始 LGPL 作品的（可能修改过的）源代码，这样，如果个人想要进一步修改该作品，他们就可以这样做。
Disclaimer: IANAL and if you want something "official" you should talk to one. That said...
A common-sense approach says that yes, the result of compilation of something that is compilable is a derivative work. For instance, the compiled version of an LGPL library is still LGPL - you can't say that you obtained a compiled version of the library and never compiled it yourself and somehow dodge providing the source code that way.
Thus, the LGPL would require you to distribute the (potentially modified) source of the original LGPL work, such that if an individual wanted to further modify the work, they could.