User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

LGPL Libraries in Embedded Devices

LGPL Libraries in Embedded Devices

Posted Aug 12, 2012 1:43 UTC (Sun) by dlang (subscriber, #313)
In reply to: LGPL Libraries in Embedded Devices by mikov
Parent article: Digia acquires Qt

> Clearly the notion of upgrading a library is meaningless if you can't actually run the result.

If that were the case, then there would be no need for the 'anti-tivo' provisions of the GPLv3 as the existing v2 requirements could be used to prevent the devices from being locked down.

There is nothing you can do with GPLv2 code that you can't also do with LGPLv2.x code, so the fact that GPLv2 code (like the kernel) is widely used in embedded devices, exactly of the type that you are concerned about, should be clear precedence showing that you don't have to worry about that.


(Log in to post comments)

LGPL Libraries in Embedded Devices

Posted Aug 12, 2012 4:09 UTC (Sun) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

"There is nothing you can do with GPLv2 code that you can't also do with LGPLv2.x code"

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 (subscriber, #313) [Link]

That has to do with coopying bits of code into other projects, allowing the code to flow from LGPL projects into GPL projects.

If you are just working with the project itself, not copying bits of it elsewhere. Then that clause would not be needed.

David Lang

LGPL Libraries in Embedded Devices

Posted Aug 12, 2012 4:42 UTC (Sun) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

So firstly, you're wrong about that. But secondly, if "There is nothing you can do with GPLv2 code that you can't also do with LGPLv2.x code" then there'd be no additional restrictions in LGPLv2.x and you'd be able to copy it into GPLv2 code without requiring the relicensing clause.

LGPL Libraries in Embedded Devices

Posted Aug 12, 2012 5:09 UTC (Sun) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link]

Ok, being pedantic.

"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.

LGPL Libraries in Embedded Devices

Posted Aug 12, 2012 5:21 UTC (Sun) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

LGPLv2.1 has requirements that GPLv2 doesn't have. You can't link GPLv2 code into proprietary binaries. 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.

LGPL Libraries in Embedded Devices

Posted Aug 12, 2012 13:23 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

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.

LGPL Libraries in Embedded Devices

Posted Aug 12, 2012 14:57 UTC (Sun) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

That's why LGPLv2.1 has an explicit clause that allows you to relicense it as GPLv2.

LGPL Libraries in Embedded Devices

Posted Aug 12, 2012 15:52 UTC (Sun) by BlueLightning (subscriber, #38978) [Link]

Rilly?

The word is "really". Please don't intentionally mis-spell words, it does not lend credence to your argument.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds