11 ms·
Edit: I might be misunderstanding something here but: I'd think a major vehicle manufacturer should be able to pay for the commercial license?
by reitanqild 8y ago
Edit: I might be misunderstanding something here but:
I'd think a major vehicle manufacturer should be able to pay for the commercial license?
- joezydeco 8y agoHas nothing to do about the royalty fees. Those didn’t change from 5.6 to 5.7. It has everything to do with being required to allow end customers to install their own libraries on a piece of their machinery. LGPL 3 closed the LGPL 2.1 loophole concerning this. The legal and warranty issues around letting customers reflash their dashboards are what the company wants to avoid.
- reitanqild 8y agoBut I thought that was part of what you got with the commercial license, a right to use it without adhering to the open source license?
- joezydeco 8y agoYeah, that does kind of point to avoiding the royalty, doesn't it?
- reitanqild 8y agoSo we agree then, they are being cheap and the part about the license is just an excuse?
- ethelward 8y agoIf they were paying for the commercial version, they would use the commercial license and thus wouldn't care about the LGPL3. Therefore, they are deliberately chosing to use the FOSS version to avoid to pay the commercial one while keeping their hardware as closed as can be.
- pjmlp 8y agoYou would be surprised by the number of lechers on the enterprise world. For them FOSS is a way to cut down development costs, while not contributing anything back, not even bug reports.