9 ms·

I was wondering how this license change helps them make more money. This is it.

by hugs 11y ago

carussell 11y ago
Except that it doesn't, and the post that you're replying to even already said so: > this is no change from previous LGPLv2 licensing. It too was incompatible with appstore
- the_mitsuhiko 11y ago
  > Except that it doesn't, and the post that you're replying to even already said so: As mentioned earlier: [citation needed] on this please. There are plenty of apps using LPGLv2 libraries on the app store. //EDIT: currently the Qt website under does not recommend a commercial license for mobile apps from what I can tell and the wiki page is very ambiguous: https://wiki.qt.io/Licensing-talk-about-mobile-platforms https://wiki.qt.io/Licensing-talk-about-mobile-platforms
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - FigBug 11y ago
    http://multinc.com/2009/08/24/compatibility-between-the-iphone-app-store-and-the-lgpl/ http://multinc.com/2009/08/24/compatibility-between-the-ipho... Some LGPL2 libraries add a static linking exception. Others the authors don't really care and don't bother submitting copyright violations to Apple.
    - the_mitsuhiko 11y ago
      The link you just provided says this: > have a couple of choices according to the license requirements […] You can keep your app closed-source, but you provide to your users all the object code of your application necessary to re-link your application. That means for example all the .o and .a files. Most people forget that this option is in fact available to iPhone app developers.
      - carussell 11y ago
        Spend two minutes to read the rest of the article. It's technically possible for anyone developing with iPhone SDK to satisfy the LGPL, but that's so trivial an observation that there's hardly a reason to mention it. Writing an app with the iPhone SDK and publishing it on the App Store are not the same thing. The latter is the point that we're discussing.
  - carussell 11y ago
    Let's be clear: The comment made the original assertion that LGPL versions 2.1 and 3 differ in that the changes in 3 makes it incompatible with App Store, where 2.1 was not. That's a strong claim, and the onus is on that person to back it up. If you're actually interested in LGPLv2.1/App Store compatibility, the issue is so well-discussed that you can turn something up by searching for yourself. This is not a cop out. A scenario where someone puts a claim out there, someone challenges it, and then the challenger is told, "well prove it's not true", is not the proper thing, and that's what your comment does. So I'm turning down your request on those grounds.
    - the_mitsuhiko 11y ago
      > The comment made the original assertion that LGPL versions 2.1 and 3 differ in that the changes in 3 makes it incompatible with App Store, where 2.1 was not. That's a strong claim, and the onus is on that person to back it up. Where was that claim made? The question was brought up if the LGPLv3 is compatible with the app store and it was mentioned that LGPLv2 code is presently being distributed via the app store. > If you're actually interested in LGPLv2.1/App Store compatibility, the issue is so well-discussed that you can turn something up by searching for yourself. It actually is not. There are various different opinions with regards to the LPGLv2 compatibility with the app store but there has not been any definite (eg: the FSF mentioned anything) answers to this dilemma. In particular many of these discussions predate the current state of affairs with regards to iOS where dynamic linking is now possible. > A scenario where someone puts a claim out there, someone challenges it, and then the challenger is told, "well prove it's not true", is not the proper thing I don't remember making a claim. I precisely mentioned that from my understanding the distribution of LPGv2 software on the app store is possible judging by what is actively being done. Something that cannot be said for any other *GPL license. In any case none of this has been challenged in court so any of this is interpretation of a license by random people on the internet with more or less credibility on the topic.
pjmlp 11y ago
Many companies that are allergic to GPLv3, now need either to change their software stack or pay for a commercial license. EDIT: Apparently stating facts how many companies see GPLv3, regardless of the license contents, hits a nerve with the downvote squad.
- wolfgke 11y ago
  That's a problem of the companies. GPLv3 contains no fundamental changes in the freedoms it gives and requires to be uphold - it just clarifies some things explicitly (in particular that tivoization is explicitly forbidden, where before it was some legal gray area) and gives better compatibility between the GPL and other FOSS licenses.
  - pjmlp 11y ago
    I didn't say that it was a licence problem. Many companies have legal departments that forbid any form of GPL software. I had customers that any third party dependency required legal approval before being used in the code.
    - wolfgke 11y ago
      You explicitly wrote about GPLv3 in your post above. For GPL software in general, your claim is surely true. But I see no reason why GPLv3 might make a difference (except for the few rare cases where tivoization might play a role) over GPLv2 here.
      - pjmlp 11y ago
        Every licence change, even a comma, triggers a new legal review in such customers.
    - chris_wot 11y ago
      Given they were using the LGPL before, which means they were already using GPL software, it means they are already in conflict with their legal department. In other words, what you say isn't the case.

I was wondering how this license change helps them make more money. This is it.

by hugs 11y ago

I was wondering how this license change helps them make more money. This is it.

Except that it doesn't, and the post that you're replying to even already said so: > this is no change from previous LGPLv2 licensing. It too was incompatible with appstore

the_mitsuhiko 11y ago
> Except that it doesn't, and the post that you're replying to even already said so: As mentioned earlier: [citation needed] on this please. There are plenty of apps using LPGLv2 libraries on the app store. //EDIT: currently the Qt website under does not recommend a commercial license for mobile apps from what I can tell and the wiki page is very ambiguous: https://wiki.qt.io/Licensing-talk-about-mobile-platforms https://wiki.qt.io/Licensing-talk-about-mobile-platforms
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- FigBug 11y ago
  http://multinc.com/2009/08/24/compatibility-between-the-iphone-app-store-and-the-lgpl/ http://multinc.com/2009/08/24/compatibility-between-the-ipho... Some LGPL2 libraries add a static linking exception. Others the authors don't really care and don't bother submitting copyright violations to Apple.
  - the_mitsuhiko 11y ago
    The link you just provided says this: > have a couple of choices according to the license requirements […] You can keep your app closed-source, but you provide to your users all the object code of your application necessary to re-link your application. That means for example all the .o and .a files. Most people forget that this option is in fact available to iPhone app developers.
    - carussell 11y ago
      Spend two minutes to read the rest of the article. It's technically possible for anyone developing with iPhone SDK to satisfy the LGPL, but that's so trivial an observation that there's hardly a reason to mention it. Writing an app with the iPhone SDK and publishing it on the App Store are not the same thing. The latter is the point that we're discussing.
- carussell 11y ago
  Let's be clear: The comment made the original assertion that LGPL versions 2.1 and 3 differ in that the changes in 3 makes it incompatible with App Store, where 2.1 was not. That's a strong claim, and the onus is on that person to back it up. If you're actually interested in LGPLv2.1/App Store compatibility, the issue is so well-discussed that you can turn something up by searching for yourself. This is not a cop out. A scenario where someone puts a claim out there, someone challenges it, and then the challenger is told, "well prove it's not true", is not the proper thing, and that's what your comment does. So I'm turning down your request on those grounds.
  - the_mitsuhiko 11y ago
    > The comment made the original assertion that LGPL versions 2.1 and 3 differ in that the changes in 3 makes it incompatible with App Store, where 2.1 was not. That's a strong claim, and the onus is on that person to back it up. Where was that claim made? The question was brought up if the LGPLv3 is compatible with the app store and it was mentioned that LGPLv2 code is presently being distributed via the app store. > If you're actually interested in LGPLv2.1/App Store compatibility, the issue is so well-discussed that you can turn something up by searching for yourself. It actually is not. There are various different opinions with regards to the LPGLv2 compatibility with the app store but there has not been any definite (eg: the FSF mentioned anything) answers to this dilemma. In particular many of these discussions predate the current state of affairs with regards to iOS where dynamic linking is now possible. > A scenario where someone puts a claim out there, someone challenges it, and then the challenger is told, "well prove it's not true", is not the proper thing I don't remember making a claim. I precisely mentioned that from my understanding the distribution of LPGv2 software on the app store is possible judging by what is actively being done. Something that cannot be said for any other *GPL license. In any case none of this has been challenged in court so any of this is interpretation of a license by random people on the internet with more or less credibility on the topic.

pjmlp 11y ago

Many companies that are allergic to GPLv3, now need either to change their software stack or pay for a commercial license. EDIT: Apparently stating facts how many companies see GPLv3, regardless of the license contents, hits a nerve with the downvote squad.

wolfgke 11y ago
That's a problem of the companies. GPLv3 contains no fundamental changes in the freedoms it gives and requires to be uphold - it just clarifies some things explicitly (in particular that tivoization is explicitly forbidden, where before it was some legal gray area) and gives better compatibility between the GPL and other FOSS licenses.
- pjmlp 11y ago
  I didn't say that it was a licence problem. Many companies have legal departments that forbid any form of GPL software. I had customers that any third party dependency required legal approval before being used in the code.
  - wolfgke 11y ago
    You explicitly wrote about GPLv3 in your post above. For GPL software in general, your claim is surely true. But I see no reason why GPLv3 might make a difference (except for the few rare cases where tivoization might play a role) over GPLv2 here.
    - pjmlp 11y ago
      Every licence change, even a comma, triggers a new legal review in such customers.
  - chris_wot 11y ago
    Given they were using the LGPL before, which means they were already using GPL software, it means they are already in conflict with their legal department. In other words, what you say isn't the case.