3 ms·
The main difference for the potential embedded user base is that LGPLv3 makes explicit (rather than implicit) that users must be able to run custom code (= modi
by giovannibajo1 12y ago
The main difference for the potential embedded user base is that LGPLv3 makes explicit (rather than implicit) that users must be able to run custom code (= modified qt) on the embedded devices; if your device is locked down (e.g.: no possibility to do firmware upgrades, or digital signature checks), you must buy a commercial license.
This is true for applications that use the new LGPLv3-only modules. For applications using LGPLv2.1 modules, you can still try to freeload by sticking to a literal reading of the license, though I would personally advise against it.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- giovannibajo1 12y agoRight, I stand corrected.
- belorn 12y ago(Sorry, I miss clicked and deleted the wrong comment. Here is it but in wrong order.) Actually, if the device has no possibility to do firmware upgrades, then that is in compliance with the the license. GPL has an exception which say that the requirement "does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM)". The goal is that "modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made". It is targeting the intentional anti-consumer and anti-property design in which the manufactorer retain control of the device, after sale. If you don't intentionally prevent others from modifying the device, then the product is unlikely to be effected by the license requirement. (The quoted parts are directly taken from the GPL license text, section 6).