Opensource

1678 readers

30 users here now

A community for discussion about open source software! Ask questions, share knowledge, share news, or post interesting stuff related to it!

Credits

Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient

⠀

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

pylapp

German router maker is latest company to inadvertently clarify the LGPL license (arstechnica.com)

submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/opensource

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Hmm, I don't think that's quite the same. The developer simply wasn't able to compile the source code, which is a pretty clear requirement in the LGPL 2.1:

For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the executable from it.

[–] refalo 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The posted link does not appear to contain the same statement as what I read from the SFC:

Steck's work showed that despite being a "Lesser" license than GPL, LGPLv2.1 still guarantees users the right to repair, modify and reinstall modified versions of the software on their device.

This is why I believed that the lack of an anti-tivoization clause was being somehow retroactively applied to v2.