5 ms·
Your software would have to be very locked down to preclude using LGPL libraries.
by beojan 6y ago
Your software would have to be very locked down to preclude using LGPL libraries.
- jcelerier 6y agoEven Tesla were able to use LGPL Qt in their cars: https://electrek.co/2018/05/19/tesla-releases-softwar-open-source-licences/ https://electrek.co/2018/05/19/tesla-releases-softwar-open-s... (which is a shitty thing to do when you're not a mom&pop shop but a company like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25344677 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25344677)
- aninteger 6y agoFollowing the license should not be considered a "shitty thing to do". In fact, it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
- jcelerier 6y ago> In fact, it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Just like my answer to the other comment, there are a ton of "perfectly reasonable" things that one can do, that are still shitty behaviour. That's like when someone leaves free books for anyone to take, you'd take one but never put another one for other people. You're not breaking any laws or rules. Still shitty. Especially if you have enough money to build a whole freaking library.
- MaxBarraclough 6y agoBut Qt chose to release under the LGPL. If they had wanted to restrict unpaid use of Qt to Free and Open Source software, they could have done so with the GPL licence.
- jcelerier 6y agothe point is not to restrict - it's to give back when you have more than enough capital to do so. Like, anyone can go to a food bank charity to have a free meal. If you have a 5-digit monthly salary, that is still a very shitty thing to do, even if you and everyone else plays by the rules.
- MaxBarraclough 6y agoSure, I see your point, especially as Tesla: 1. Could easily afford it, as you say 2. Presumably aren't releasing their software as Free and Open Source
- Phlogistique 6y agoI do agree with you, but in the specific case of free book sharing - I hear that most of the time, the problems is too many books rather than too few, so you should really not worry about taking a book even if you are not sure you're going to put another one for other people.
- beojan 6y ago> which is a shitty thing to do when you're not a mom&pop shop but a company like... Why? That's the whole point of LGPL, it doesn't matter how big you are, so long as your users can replace your copy of Qt with a modified copy you can use it under LGPL.
- jcelerier 6y agoSure, it's legally fine. There are a thousand billion things I can do that are perfectly legal and still shitty.
- nickelpro 6y agoYes, sure, but why is it shitty? The code is released under LGPL, why is it wrong morally or otherwise for anyone to use it under that license?
- exikyut 6y agoI really wonder how Tesla thinks I'm going to replace libQtCore.so, given that I'd presumably need to root the OS first...?
- lights0123 6y agoglibc is also LGPL, but basically everything uses that unless you're going for musl.
- boudewijnrempt 6y agoEven Autodesk, which uses Qt for pretty much all its products, including Maya, doesn't pay a cent for Qt. Same with The Foundry. As soon as Nokia made LGPL licensed python bindings for Qt, they dropped PyQt, stopped paying or contributing, and just went on freeloading.