5 ms·

LGPL3 is a no-go for a lot of embedded projects, as OP is probably finding. The anti-tivoization clauses mean you need to provide a way to install user-built Q

LGPL3 is a no-go for a lot of embedded projects, as OP is probably finding. The anti-tivoization clauses mean you need to provide a way to install user-built Qt libraries on the target device. You might think that's not a big deal until you go to work for an automotive or medical company and meet up with the massive wall of lawyers that tell you no fucking way.

toyg 4y ago
But those projects should have the budget for a real license, so that's not a real issue. The problem is typically people not bothering to understand the L in LGPL.
- arinlen 4y ago
  > But those projects should have the budget for a real license, so that's not a real issue. You're missing the whole point. It's irrelevant whether projects should have a budget or not. The whole point is that there are plenty of alternatives that do not require thousands of dollars per year*developer, nor do require lawyers to audit releases.
  - toyg 4y ago
    As others said, there aren't that many alternatives that work as well as Qt in a crossplatform way or in the embedded space. On the desktop you can go Electron, but you then pay penalties in performance that not everyone is willing to endure. In the embedded space there is little or no alternative.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - LtWorf 4y ago
    Not if you also want decent performances
  - varajelle 4y ago
    There isn't so many alternatives that works so well in the embedded space. (in the kind of device where a web browser is not an option)
  - detaro 4y ago
    Now I'm curious what you think are the "plenty of alternatives" for embedded that are obviously a better choice.
not_the_fda 4y ago
The anti-tivoization clause only applies to consumer devices. There is no issues with using the LGPL in a medical device since the customer is usually commercial.
- joezydeco 4y ago
  If you have more documentation to back that up I'd love to see it. From my discussions with the walls of lawyers, the interpretation varies by jurisdiction. The actual LGPLv3 text has zero instances of the word "commercial" or the word "consumer" so interpretation is all we can go by.
  - varajelle 4y ago
    Search again. The LGPLv3 is just referencing the GPL. The GPLv3 paragraph 6 define in which conditions you need to provide the installation information, and explicitly say it is only for user product: > A “User Product” is either (1) a “consumer product”, which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling.
  - not_the_fda 4y ago
    http://radar.oreilly.com/2007/03/gplv3-user-products-clause http://radar.oreilly.com/2007/03/gplv3-user-products-clause.... The FSF felt that consumers needed protected from tivoization but commercial users did not since they had the financial resources to fight for themselves with contract law.
- LtWorf 4y ago
  A commercial customer has the same right as everyone else using LGPL software.
  - not_the_fda 4y ago
    They do not. http://radar.oreilly.com/2007/03/gplv3-user-products-clause.html http://radar.oreilly.com/2007/03/gplv3-user-products-clause.... The FSF felt that consumers needed protected from tivoization but commercial users did not since they had the financial resources to fight for themselves with contract law.

toyg 4y ago

But those projects should have the budget for a real license, so that's not a real issue. The problem is typically people not bothering to understand the L in LGPL.

arinlen 4y ago
> But those projects should have the budget for a real license, so that's not a real issue. You're missing the whole point. It's irrelevant whether projects should have a budget or not. The whole point is that there are plenty of alternatives that do not require thousands of dollars per year*developer, nor do require lawyers to audit releases.
- toyg 4y ago
  As others said, there aren't that many alternatives that work as well as Qt in a crossplatform way or in the embedded space. On the desktop you can go Electron, but you then pay penalties in performance that not everyone is willing to endure. In the embedded space there is little or no alternative.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- LtWorf 4y ago
  Not if you also want decent performances
- varajelle 4y ago
  There isn't so many alternatives that works so well in the embedded space. (in the kind of device where a web browser is not an option)
- detaro 4y ago
  Now I'm curious what you think are the "plenty of alternatives" for embedded that are obviously a better choice.

not_the_fda 4y ago

The anti-tivoization clause only applies to consumer devices. There is no issues with using the LGPL in a medical device since the customer is usually commercial.

joezydeco 4y ago
If you have more documentation to back that up I'd love to see it. From my discussions with the walls of lawyers, the interpretation varies by jurisdiction. The actual LGPLv3 text has zero instances of the word "commercial" or the word "consumer" so interpretation is all we can go by.
- varajelle 4y ago
  Search again. The LGPLv3 is just referencing the GPL. The GPLv3 paragraph 6 define in which conditions you need to provide the installation information, and explicitly say it is only for user product: > A “User Product” is either (1) a “consumer product”, which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling.
- not_the_fda 4y ago
  http://radar.oreilly.com/2007/03/gplv3-user-products-clause http://radar.oreilly.com/2007/03/gplv3-user-products-clause.... The FSF felt that consumers needed protected from tivoization but commercial users did not since they had the financial resources to fight for themselves with contract law.
LtWorf 4y ago
A commercial customer has the same right as everyone else using LGPL software.
- not_the_fda 4y ago
  They do not. http://radar.oreilly.com/2007/03/gplv3-user-products-clause.html http://radar.oreilly.com/2007/03/gplv3-user-products-clause.... The FSF felt that consumers needed protected from tivoization but commercial users did not since they had the financial resources to fight for themselves with contract law.