I was under the understanding that to use the LGPL you had to provide a method to be able to use updated versions of the libraries. That's why you either needed to provide dynamic linking or static linking with your own object code for recompilation. So this does sound like a violation to me.

For your second question, what you should do about it depends on what you want to do and your relationship with the company [smile]. If you're associated with the company, I'd be giving stern warnings as soon as I heard about the idea of using the LGPL for this. But if you're wanting to call the company out, I'd recommend contacting the owner of the copyright of the LGPLed library as they're the ones who've got the leverage.

It's not a violation. The LGPL can not mandate open access to the platform on which LGPL'd software is being run.

Quote:Does this violate the LGPL?

Ultimately this question is up to judges.

Like the others, I believe this falls within the scope of the LGPL, but nothing prevents the copyright holders from suing and asserting that it does violate the terms. Based on that lawsuit, a judge may ultimately decide which side of the line this falls. Without such a lawsuit, we can only speculate.

Quote:And if so, what should I do about it?

Are you a copyright holder, or the potential infringer, or an outsider?

If you are a copyright holder, you have the option of taking action against them, starting with friendly phone calls and potentially ending with a multi-bajillion dollar lawsuit. Be sure to talk with a team of competent IP lawyers before doing anything, since you'll need to know a whole lot about the IP rights and about the details of the implementation which we don't know.

If you are the potential infringer, you should talk with your IP legal experts about the possibility of it being a violation, the risks of lawsuits (regardless of it being an actual violation), the risks and costs for the various available avenues, the risks and costs of obtaining a different license from the copyright holder, the risks and costs of developing a replacement library, etc.

If you are an outsider, you can choose to do nothing, or you can choose to notify the copyright holders.

The following paragraph taken from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html might shed further light into the matter:

Quote:
What is tivoization? How does GPLv3 prevent it?
Some devices utilize free software that can be upgraded, but are designed so that users are not allowed to modify that software. There are lots of different ways to do this; for example, sometimes the hardware checksums the software that is installed, and shuts down if it doesn't match an expected signature. The manufacturers comply with GPLv2 by giving you the source code, but you still don't have the freedom to modify the software you're using. We call this practice tivoization.

When people distribute User Products that include software under GPLv3, section 6 requires that they provide you with information necessary to modify that software. User Products is a term specially defined in the license; examples of User Products include portable music players, digital video recorders, and home security systems.

-cb

Quote:Original post by Hodgman

Quote:Original post by cbenoi1
The following paragraph taken from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html might shed further light into the matter:

*snip*

So it's not a LGPL v2 violation, but it may well be a LGPL v3 violation?

Note that those comments were specific to the GPL, not the LGPL.

LGPLv3 waives several restrictions of the GPL, including Anti-Circumvention clauses.


As was mentioned above, this only matters if you are the copyright holder or if you are the one who is distributing the devices. In both cases, you should consult an actual IP lawyer. If you aren't either of them, then you should either do nothing or send a report to the copyright owner.