LGPL License Questions

Derek Neighbors plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
Fri, 6 Dec 2002 16:28:28 -0700 (MST)


Voltage Spike said:
> A friend and I have been discussing the LGPL as it might apply to an
> embedded product.  We desire to link in an LGPL library to some
> proprietary code such that we replace the current proprietary protocol
> with an open one.

It is always best if you have questions on a particular license to ask the
author of the license the question.  As generally intent is the important
part of legal procedings.  So knowing the original authors intent can be
valuable. :)  One thing the Free Software Foundation provides is guidance
on Free Software licenses.  I suggest you contact them as they are willing
to help:

<from gnu.org>
If you want help choosing a license, evaluating a license, or have any
other questions about licenses, you can email us at <licensing@gnu.org>.
</from gnu.org>

> It would appear that according to provision 6(a), we need only
> distribute the source code to the LGPL library and the object file to
> the proprietary code (before linking).  The other provisions would be
> that the license is altered to allow both modification and reverse
> engineering of the end product, the copyright notice is distributed with
> the project, and a copy of the LGPL is included with the product.  Have
> I understood the terms properly?

I think pretty much sums it up, but IANAL.

> Another question: If the embedded product provides no manner of updating
> the product (beyond replacing a ROM), would it still be legal to use
> LGPL code?  It states that our terms must allow for modification, but it
> does not specify that it be technically feasible.

I don't think this is an issue.  You are granting them the rights to
reverse engineer and providing them code to modify if they so desire.  I
do not think a hardware device _limitation_ is an issue.  If you were to
put restrictions against the hardware it might come into play.

I have not dealt with embedded product licensing much or I would be more
verbose.  I would definitely contact the FSF specifically to get advice.

Derek Neighbors
GNU Enterprise
http://www.gnue.org
derek@gnue.org