Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
Deadline scheduling: coming soon?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 27, 2013
ACPI for ARM?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 21, 2013
GNU virtual private Ethernet
If that were true then LGPLv2 wouldn't need the explicit GPLv2 relicense clause.
LGPL Libraries in Embedded Devices
Posted Aug 12, 2012 4:34 UTC (Sun) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
If you are just working with the project itself, not copying bits of it elsewhere. Then that clause would not be needed.
Posted Aug 12, 2012 4:42 UTC (Sun) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
Posted Aug 12, 2012 5:09 UTC (Sun) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
"Other than copying the code into programs with a different license than the original, there is nothing that you can do with a GPLv2 binary that you can't do with a LGPLv2 binary"
does that cover the bases sufficiently?
and if there is something you can do with a GPLv2 binary that you can't do with a LGPLv2 binary, it doesn't matter because the LGPL allows you to convert the license to GPLv2 and then you only have to comply with the GPLv2
so any worries that you can't use the LGPLv2 code in an embedded system are foolish in light of the extensive use of GPLv2 code (busybox and the linux kernel being two HUGE example) in exactly that space.
Posted Aug 12, 2012 5:21 UTC (Sun) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
Posted Aug 12, 2012 13:23 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252)
LGPLv2.1 has requirements that GPLv2 doesn't have.
Rilly? This means all Linux distributions are blatant copyright violators because they link LGPL2.1-covered crt1.o with mass of GPLv2-licensed and GPLv3-licensed code and GPL is quite adamant about “any further restrictions”. Usual “system libraries” excuse does not help here because it's only applicable “unless that component itself accompanies the executable”.
Sorry, but no: LGPLv2.1 contains only additional permissions.
So there's plenty of code in embedded devices that's distributed under the terms of LGPLv2.1, and so you have to be concerned about the additional requirements that LGPLv2.1 contains.
Only if you use additional options given to you by LGPLv2.1… Yes, they are conditional, but so what? It's still additional options, not additional restrictions. If you feel safe distributing GPLv2 code (such as Linux kernel) then you should feel yourself equally safe distributing LGPLv2.1 code.
Posted Aug 12, 2012 14:57 UTC (Sun) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
Posted Aug 12, 2012 15:52 UTC (Sun) by BlueLightning (subscriber, #38978)
The word is "really". Please don't intentionally mis-spell words, it does not lend credence to your argument.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds