3 ms·
It seems they're pretty directly admitting to referring to the LGPL library while implementing theirs under a different license. I wonder if they'll have no is
by kimixa 10mo ago
It seems they're pretty directly admitting to referring to the LGPL library while implementing theirs under a different license.
I wonder if they'll have no issues with people directly reading their code while happening to implement the same functionality with a closed license? Or a GPL-style one?
I'm surprised they admitted to it - it's hardly "Clean Room"....
- messe 10mo ago> I'm surprised they admitted to it - it's hardly "Clean Room".... "Clean Room" RE isn't always legally required.
- kimixa 10mo agoNot in RE, maybe, but directly viewing source isn't RE either.
- messe 10mo ago> but directly viewing source isn't RE either. I'd argue that it is. I'd also argue that directly viewing the source doesn't mean you can't write a non-infringing driver. Unless the source is owned by Oracle, in which case, my hourly rate goes up 100x.
- t-3 10mo agoThe source and the machine code generated from it are logically equivalent (hopefully). Legality and effort required may be a different matter, but from a common-sense point of view there's little difference.
- aulin 10mo agoSeems to me the most expectations they had with the library was about the compression stuff and it did not include that. So in the end it was mostly rev eng. Also in this specific case you are using the library code as documentation about the hardware, the code itself has little value. I doubt it would configure as license violation.