88
German router maker is latest company to inadvertently clarify the LGPL license (arstechnica.com)
submitted 3 weeks ago by Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world to c/opensource@programming.dev
6 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Ephera@lemmy.ml 16 points 3 weeks ago

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@programming.dev 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks 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.

this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2025
88 points (98.9% liked)

Opensource

1798 readers
14 users here now

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

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

⠀

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
pylapp@programming.dev