3 ms·
IANAL but AFAIK, the license absolutely does require them to provide the source code for any LGPL libraries that they used. It does not affect/infect their oth
by voakbasda 4y ago
IANAL but AFAIK, the license absolutely does require them to provide the source code for any LGPL libraries that they used. It does not affect/infect their other source code, as would be the case with the full GPL. However, voice.ai was foolish enough to include a GPLv3 component in their product, so all of their source code arguably has been affected by its terms.
- password4321 4y agoYes, thanks! The piece I didn't understand (under LGPL) was "source code of VoiceAILib.dll".
- megous 4y agoThe user has to be given a practical way to change the LGPLed code in any way he wants. They have to provide a way to rebuild VoiceAILib.dll with a modified version of LGPLed library, or just link the LGPL licensed library into it's own dll and don't bundle it with their own code into the same dll. Providing the full source code for the whole dll is also a way to satisfy the LGPL's license requirements, of course.
- UncleEntity 4y agoThey statically linked in LGPL code which makes it a difference case although. From a quick google they have to release the code under a compatible license or provide a way to relink with with the LGPL code. If they had dynamically linked they would have been fine. The GPL code they statically linked in… they’re just screwed.