"Selling a machine with proprietary software that links against an LGPLv3 library..." - post discussion (lemmy.kde.social)

submitted 4 months ago by ulterno@lemmy.kde.social to c/opensource@lemmy.ml

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I came across a stackexchange thread asking if system root access will be required to be given to the user.

And the answer explaining the license and saying they needed to let the user be able to swap the libs on the system somehow.

And because I just joined the community and can't comment there, here I am.

I feel like, the seller doesn't really need to give root access to the user as long as they allow the user to copy said proprietary software on another system (and this act not be restricted by the license) and then do whatever they feel like, as long as the original system is immutated.

Thoughts?

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

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

[-] refalo@programming.dev 13 points 4 months ago

Anything that uses *GPLv3 license (which includes the anti-tivoization clause) has to have some way of swapping out those libraries.

[-] ulterno@lemmy.kde.social -1 points 4 months ago

Just checked the tivoization definition. (Guess I should have done so, when reading the original thread, when I felt unsure from their explanation of the word).

So, it has to be runnable on the same hardware after modification. It makes sense now.

I seems like something that would be good in case the solution is being used for a long period and would make sure the user doesn't have to bear the burden of finding another platform that would run the binary, in case a library update is required. This would be in the interest of even corporate clients.

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0