5 ms·

Why is bundling a (L)GPL .dll considered a violation?

by eurasiantiger 5y ago

smitop 5y ago
They have to provide the source code for those DLLs, which they aren't doing.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- suvo 5y ago
  Actually I wanted to know, which clause says that. Is it Section 4d0?
- dubcanada 5y ago
  No they don't, if I am correct all they need to do is allow you to swap out the dll for your own and put a license.txt or what not with the license. As long as the DLL is setup as a shared library (which it is) it is fine.
  - FeepingCreature 5y ago
    The source code is necessary to create "your own".
    - atatatat 5y ago
      Not always, but, practically.
grahamlee 5y ago
Because you have to make the source code available to people who receive your distribution of the library.
- rndgermandude 5y ago
  So? Maybe malwarebytes are doing that?
  - deelowe 5y ago
    Are they? I got the sense that this is the issue.
- jcun4128 5y ago
  I'll have to brush up on this, GPL that's not seen by people say it does something in messaging or part of DNS or something, it would still have to be public? Use case is part of some web-app that isn't installed.
  - dfatduck 5y ago
    I am quite sure that you only need to publish the source if you are distributing the GPLed code.
  - singlow 5y ago
    If its running on your server, then you aren't distributing it. There are licenses like AGPL that do try to limit that usage but GPL does not. Now if it is a web app that has client code that gets executed in the browser, that is distributed to the end user and GPL would apply, so you would need to include license notifications for that within your app or as part of the source code distributed. In that case you are already distributing source but you may need to make an unobfuscated source available if your distribution is minified/uglified.
    - jcun4128 5y ago
      YANAL ha, but I was curious even if we did have to disclose the specific GPL piece of software, do we only have to release that part? Not the entire app. > web app that has client code that gets executed in the browser, That's the technicality stuff, the client triggers an event, that then uses this GPL piece of code that is on the server. I went through our stuff (mostly NPM) and they all are either Apache/MIT but there was one piece like ahh... Anyway not making money yet but will bring this up for review with legal. Thanks
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
CGamesPlay 5y ago
If my dubious understanding of the GPL is correct, you can link to an LGPL DLL without assuming the LGPL. Distributing that DLL modified/unmodified would require also distributing the corresponding modified/unmodified source code. I don't think that in this case we have a violation (for the LGPL code) since it's unlikely that they modified the source code for the named libraries (and would provide links to the unmodified source code after application of legal pressure). I also would assume that the copyright notices required to be displayed are all listed somewhere buried in the about dialog of the running software. [append] > wintun.dll, from the Wintun project, without mentioning it, thus violating its license. Also, after reading the license, I don't see this particular clause at all.
- contravariant 5y ago
  From what I remember someone should basically be free to modify the DLL distributed under the LGPL license, so they need to be able to access the corresponding source-code and whatever logic is necessary to link a new DLL to the application (if required).
  - stonemetal12 5y ago
    According to clause 4, you either provide enough source to compile and load a modified lib, or you use a dynamically linked lib. If you go the dynamic linking route no source distribution is required. I guess they figure the end user can get source from the library project themselves.
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      > If you go the dynamic linking route no source distribution is required. For your code. The LGPL code still requires source distribution. (Plus, the BSD clause requires attribution.)
      - eurasiantiger 5y ago
        Certainly the authors of said LGPL code are distributing that source. Would it make sense to distribute the source of every .dll included in a project?

Why is bundling a (L)GPL .dll considered a violation?

smitop 5y ago

They have to provide the source code for those DLLs, which they aren't doing.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
suvo 5y ago
Actually I wanted to know, which clause says that. Is it Section 4d0?
dubcanada 5y ago
No they don't, if I am correct all they need to do is allow you to swap out the dll for your own and put a license.txt or what not with the license. As long as the DLL is setup as a shared library (which it is) it is fine.
- FeepingCreature 5y ago
  The source code is necessary to create "your own".
  - atatatat 5y ago
    Not always, but, practically.

grahamlee 5y ago

Because you have to make the source code available to people who receive your distribution of the library.

rndgermandude 5y ago
So? Maybe malwarebytes are doing that?
- deelowe 5y ago
  Are they? I got the sense that this is the issue.
jcun4128 5y ago
I'll have to brush up on this, GPL that's not seen by people say it does something in messaging or part of DNS or something, it would still have to be public? Use case is part of some web-app that isn't installed.
- dfatduck 5y ago
  I am quite sure that you only need to publish the source if you are distributing the GPLed code.
- singlow 5y ago
  If its running on your server, then you aren't distributing it. There are licenses like AGPL that do try to limit that usage but GPL does not. Now if it is a web app that has client code that gets executed in the browser, that is distributed to the end user and GPL would apply, so you would need to include license notifications for that within your app or as part of the source code distributed. In that case you are already distributing source but you may need to make an unobfuscated source available if your distribution is minified/uglified.
  - jcun4128 5y ago
    YANAL ha, but I was curious even if we did have to disclose the specific GPL piece of software, do we only have to release that part? Not the entire app. > web app that has client code that gets executed in the browser, That's the technicality stuff, the client triggers an event, that then uses this GPL piece of code that is on the server. I went through our stuff (mostly NPM) and they all are either Apache/MIT but there was one piece like ahh... Anyway not making money yet but will bring this up for review with legal. Thanks

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

CGamesPlay 5y ago

If my dubious understanding of the GPL is correct, you can link to an LGPL DLL without assuming the LGPL. Distributing that DLL modified/unmodified would require also distributing the corresponding modified/unmodified source code. I don't think that in this case we have a violation (for the LGPL code) since it's unlikely that they modified the source code for the named libraries (and would provide links to the unmodified source code after application of legal pressure). I also would assume that the copyright notices required to be displayed are all listed somewhere buried in the about dialog of the running software. [append] > wintun.dll, from the Wintun project, without mentioning it, thus violating its license. Also, after reading the license, I don't see this particular clause at all.

contravariant 5y ago
From what I remember someone should basically be free to modify the DLL distributed under the LGPL license, so they need to be able to access the corresponding source-code and whatever logic is necessary to link a new DLL to the application (if required).
- stonemetal12 5y ago
  According to clause 4, you either provide enough source to compile and load a modified lib, or you use a dynamically linked lib. If you go the dynamic linking route no source distribution is required. I guess they figure the end user can get source from the library project themselves.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    > If you go the dynamic linking route no source distribution is required. For your code. The LGPL code still requires source distribution. (Plus, the BSD clause requires attribution.)
    - eurasiantiger 5y ago
      Certainly the authors of said LGPL code are distributing that source. Would it make sense to distribute the source of every .dll included in a project?