Not quite. If you distribute an app that includes an LGPL library then you must also distribute the full sources for that library, not just the modifications. You must also distribute your application in such a way that the end user can rebuild the library and make your app use the rebuilt library. How you achieve that is entirely up to you, but dynamic linking is certainly the easiest way.
The problem is that the OS used is Linux where the licensed owner, FSF, main aim is to sue its own users who do not 100% comply! Even the most arrogant proprietary OS vendor realises that to be successful you do not actually take own user base to court action.
erm, Risk of being sued by FSF if your product is popular and FSF thinks you have some money.
e
Tell me David, how many layers spend their time looking for commercial OS being abused to actively pursue a legal case? Then tell me how many lawyers and software law consultants actively look for GPL abuse? For a hint, a mailing list is here where you can find them
You have three errors in your statement:
Please get your facts straight before you make yourself look even worse.
DJ Delorie has already covered several of your mistakes - you've managed an impressively high FUD-to-signal ratio here!
Do you have any basis in fact for your claim that the main aim of the FSF is to sue its non-compliant users? Everybody else thinks the main aim for the FSF is to let anyone who wants it have access to free software, to encourage the use of free software, and make sure that such software stays free. Your accusation is a bit like claiming that the main aim of a democratic government is to lock up corrupt election officials.
Yes, I know most of the correct details - not as well as you do, and I've benefited from your knowledge in past threads (as well as from your software!). I was trying to simplify things a little for the benefit of others who appear to be completely lost.
My answer would have to be "not a clue" to all of these. But I would be surprised if more than a tiny fraction of GPL violations are ever discovered, much less end up with legal action (those that *are* discovered are normally resolved amicably and don't involve lawyers). Similarly, I expect most abuses of commercial licenses are settled without the need of courts. Any software supplier, using open source licenses or closed source licenses, wants people to use their software, but within the limits of their license - and occasionally, they may have no choice but to resort to lawyers to enforce the license. The details vary, but the principle is the same.
In message , DJ Delorie writes
Who is?
Some times there is confusion in that area.
Why did it fail? Just the general principals not the detail
Like speeding cases... The police have a 100% success rate with catching people speeding.... :-)
He didn't
-- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
The collective developers. Not even Linus Torvalds is the sole "owner."
Clearly. That is exactly what FUD seeks.
He didn't what? He certainly didn't have his "facts" straight.
-- Michael N. Moran (h) 770 516 7918 5009 Old Field Ct. (c) 678 521 5460 Kennesaw, GA, USA 30144 http://mnmoran.org "So often times it happens, that we live our lives in chains and we never even know we have the key." "Already Gone" by Jack Tempchin (recorded by The Eagles) The Beatles were wrong: 1 & 1 & 1 is 1
IIRC the Linux Kernel has multiple copyrights from multiple authors, which means every contributor owns a part of it, but no one entity owns the whole thing. This makes legal actions difficult, even something as simple as changing the copyright (say, from GPL2 to GPL3). Also why the FSF is careful to get copyright assignments for their projects.
I don't know exactly, but you should be able to get details on the web.
I meant 99% of the ones that are *caught* are quickly resolved.
Well it does sue users.
No we don't
And sue users who don't follow its rules. As shown by the court cases it has pursued
It is.
-- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
In message , DJ Delorie writes
So you don't know either
Faire enough. So of the 5% of violators 4.99% are resolved without court action.
-- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Nonsense. FSFs object is NOT to spread their software, but to ensure that it is, and remains, free. Thus there are no restrictions on its use, provided you publish everything involved. Some licenses allow you to keep your own and GNU software in different classes. Just read the license.
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]:
Try the download section.
Which is why I said "I don't know". Duh. But since you're unable to do a simple web search, here:
"We began working with Cisco in 2003 to help them establish a process for complying with our software licenses, and the initial changes were very promising," explained Brett Smith, licensing compliance engineer at the FSF. "Unfortunately, they never put in the effort that was necessary to finish the process, and now five years later we have still not seen a plan for compliance. As a result, we believe that legal action is the best way to restore the rights we grant to all users of our software."
"In the fifteen years we've spent enforcing our licenses, we've never gone to court before. We have always managed to get the companies we have worked with to take their obligations seriously."
I don't know about your 5% number, I suspect you're making it up, but the exact number doesn't matter. My point was that the FSF would much rather get people to honor the GPL than resort to suing, and that most of the time, the people agree.
This is intimately connected with the lack of legality involved in selecting a group of largely muscled, not necessarily especially thoughtful, delegates to punish users who fail to observe the terms the the GPL and LGPL licenses.
Good lord, your biases are showing.
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]:
Try the download section.
... snip ...
I suggest a violent action. Read them.
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]:
Try the download section.
... snip ...
I think a cursory scan over this thread will reveal that those 'others' form a set of roughly one.
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]:
Try the download section.
It has, on a few occasions, sued distributors. It doesn't sue end users, since the GPL puts no restrictions on use, only on distribution.
I don't make a point of following legal news around the world, even if it happens to involve software, so I don't know anything about numbers, or who sues their distributors and/or users. A couple of points do stand out, however, since they made big news stories. First up is everybody's favourite anti-GPL company, Microsoft. They are regularly in the news for suing dodgy distributors (which is fair enough - there's no excuse for breaking licenses or contracts whether they are open source or closed source), and occasionally end users (if they are big enough to be worth the effort). Secondly, SCO became famous as the company that sues its users.
And at the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, there is a difference between occasionally feeling obliged to take a certain action, and having that action as your main aim.
I suppose it's more accurate to say *almost* everybody else who knows anything about the FSF - a plain "everybody" was, I admit, an exaggeration.
You forgot the smiley.
Because Cisco's response to "you're not providing source" tended to be "Uh, okay; we'll get back to you". They would eventually get around to fixing the problem, but not before they'd released a couple more products without the source.
IOW, Cisco (and previously LinkSys) figured that there wasn't really any incentive to take the issue seriously, so the FSF decided to give them an incentive in the form of a lawsuit.
It occasionally sues distributors when other efforts to obtain compliance fail to produce results.
How else is it going to ensure that the software stays free?
It only resorts to litigation when other approaches have failed. They have only ever sued in relation to ongoing behaviour. If a distributor eventually comes into compliance, they don't sue over past conduct.
[Try distributing e.g. Microsoft's products without permission, and see if they accept "okay, I'll stop doing it" as a settlement.]If the distributor's response is "so sue us" (explicitly or implicitly), chances are that they will get sued.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.