| |||||||||||||
LGPL Libraries in Embedded DevicesLGPL Libraries in Embedded DevicesPosted Aug 13, 2012 21:14 UTC (Mon) by paulj (subscriber, #341)In reply to: LGPL Libraries in Embedded Devices by khim Parent article: Digia acquires Qt
If the point you're responding to can be disregarded because it is made by organisations who have it in their commercial interest to argue for one interpretation of the LGPL, such as MySQL, then how is your point any different? For your argument relies on us believing Apples' interpretation, which suits them commercially just as much, by allowing them to re-use LGPL code with fewer obligations than otherwise?
The LGPLv2 certainly does appear to want the end-user recipient of the software to be able to modify the software. However, its language doesn't appear to have envisaged locked-down hardware. How that all works out, well there's one "organisation" whose opinion really counts on this - but no one has brought it to court yet. (The GPLv2 seems to be more clear about requiring installation scripts, yet no Linux kernel copyright holders have taken any action against various vendors of locked-down hardware).
The (L)GPLv3 was meant to address that locked-down hardware loop-hole, as you know.
(Log in to post comments)
LGPL Libraries in Embedded Devices Posted Aug 14, 2012 17:30 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] If the point you're responding to can be disregarded because it is made by organisations who have it in their commercial interest to argue for one interpretation of the LGPL, such as MySQL, then how is your point any different? For your argument relies on us believing Apples' interpretation, which suits them commercially just as much, by allowing them to re-use LGPL code with fewer obligations than otherwise? Because stakes are very different. If MySQL is caught in a lie and even brought to the court the biggest penalty they can get is public slap on the wrist: there are no penalty for writing incorrect facts on your websites - especially if you can not prove malicious intent (you can not get much for negligence). If Apple is caught in lawsuit with LGPL violation then it loses the central piece of MacOS and iOS. The (L)GPLv3 was meant to address that locked-down hardware loop-hole, as you know. Exactly. And this is how GPLv3 cleared the confusion. Recall the exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis principle. The very fact that GPLv3 was needed to explicitly close the aforementioned loophole means that loophole is valid - otherwise why change anything there at all?
LGPL Libraries in Embedded Devices Posted Aug 16, 2012 13:02 UTC (Thu) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
The fact that GPLv3 closed the loophole does NOT mean it is valid. We haven't had a court case, which could conclude it is invalid.
What it does mean is the loophole is plausible. To prevent it being tested and found valid, v3 shuts it down.
Cheers,
LGPL Libraries in Embedded Devices Posted Aug 16, 2012 21:45 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] The fact that GPLv3 closed the loophole does NOT mean it is valid. We haven't had a court case, which could conclude it is invalid. After this? And this? And this? Dream on. The question is not simply about GPLv3 text per se. The question is about presentation. FSF basically always presented GPLv3 as our weapon against "tivoization and Treacherous Computing" not as simple clarification. That's why now if you want to prove that loophole does not exist in GPLv2.1 you must first go to court and prove that you interpretation of the license is somehow have more weight then the interpretation of the same license made by people who wrote said license in first place! Does it look to you like a sensible course of actions?
LGPL Libraries in Embedded Devices Posted Aug 16, 2012 19:18 UTC (Thu) by mikov (subscriber, #33179) [Link]
I think there is a huge problem with your reasoning.
MySQL, Trolltech, Xamarin, etc, are the actual copyright holders of the sources they release under LGPL. Certainly they have the moral right to dictate the terms of the distribution. This is how they interpret the LGPL with respect to their own source. Their intent is what matters, at least ethically.
You might argue that in a court of law you could get away with violating their intent because the license they chose does not clearly represent it. I don't know if that is a valid legal argument or not, especially considering that they have made their intent clear. But it is not morally valid.
In a similar vein, if I release my software under LGPL, it doesn't prevent me from simultaneously distributing it under different license myself. I am not exactly sure which parts of WebKit are copyrighted by Apple, under what terms, etc.
Iff WebKit is only licensed under LGPL, I don't see how Apple satisfies the requirements for re-linking even nominally.
LGPL Libraries in Embedded Devices Posted Aug 16, 2012 21:29 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] You might argue that in a court of law you could get away with violating their intent because the license they chose does not clearly represent it. Absolutely. That's why companies spend millions on license creation. Intent only matters if text of the license itself have no clear legal meaning. Otherwise why bother with all these expenses if owner can change rules at any time by publishing new interpretation of the license? You can give additional permissions at any time (it effect you are just creating brand new license which does not affect anyone who does not use your newfound generosity), but additional restrictions... that's entirely different thing. And the ability to actually install new library on the target system is most definitely new restriction (from the POV of distributor, not from POV of end user!). I don't know if that is a valid legal argument or not, especially considering that they have made their intent clear. It really depends on many things. They have not even added this explanation to the downloadable package, they have not made any movements to make sure potential user will actually see (let alone agree) to this novel interpretation, etc. Hard to see this tightening of the license valid. It may even be considered extortion in some jurisdictions if the other side will prove that it got the software before the appropriate entry in FAQ was added. But it is not morally valid. Moral is in eyes of the beholder. It differs from person to person and from society to society. That's why we need all the laws, treatises and licenses: to decide what to do when two persons claim opposite things yet both feel they are right. Iff WebKit is only licensed under LGPL, I don't see how Apple satisfies the requirements for re-linking even nominally. It does not. Why should it? Re-linking requirements is just one option. There are others. For example 2b: Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the Library. A suitable mechanism is one that (1) uses at run time a copy of the library already present on the user's computer system, rather than copying library functions into the executable, and (2) will operate properly with a modified version of the library, if the user installs one, as long as the modified version is interface-compatible with the version that the work was made with. Note how this requirements says literally nothing about your ability to actually put this library on the user's computer system, it just dictates that if library is somehow found a way there then it must be used. And yes, WebKit is most definitely available only under LGPL (see Wikipedia for the explanation WRT why). Apple is not sole copyright holder by far.
|
|||||||||||||