3 ms·

Quite honestly, I'm more worried about inaccurately portraying their viewpoint. Most of my teams run-ins with the lawyers was LGPL related, and their interpreta

• hansjorg 11y ago
  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.en.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.en.html (removed wall off text quoting 6a, was a bit too long)
• snuxoll 11y ago
  I don't really see how 6a is open for interpretation. If you use a library licensed under LGPL2.1 or higher the user must be able to replace the library with a modified copy, this is why Mono cannot be used on iOS or Android without a commercial license. VMWare is a pretty scummy company, thankfully open source virtualization has come a long way - it's not 100% yet but oVirt does a pretty good job at replacing vCenter IMO.
  • 0x0 11y ago
    Is that true now that the latest ios/xcode combo allows anyone with an apple id to self sign most apps (those that don't require specific entitlements like push messages)? If the problem is that you have to use a new app ID and cannot seamlessly install over the existing app, how is that different from using LGPL software installed in /usr/bin on a machine where you haven't been granted root access?
    • snuxoll 11y ago
      You've always been able to do this. You could distribute your Xamarin.iOS application as source-only and require users compile it themselves without being in violation of the license, but you still cannot release it on the App Store without a commercial license (since it is impossible without jailbreaking to replace the .so).