LGPL v2 section 6 loophole?

[Sitaram Chamarty]

OK, I'll rephrase my question: can the closed source app actively
include measures to *prevent* something working which would otherwise
have worked, and still be compliant with LGPL v2?

My reading is yes (this is tivo-isation, except with software instead
of hardware), but I thought I'd ask for opinions.  Yes, I know we are
not lawyers and this forum does not give legal advice -- but I do want
your opinions :-)

[I should have clarified that I assume the API compatibiity still
exists, i.e., I am asking about cases where *technically* it is
possible.  The operative sentence for that, in the URL discussed, is
"It is understood that the user who changes the contents of
definitions files in the Library will not necessarily be able to
recompile the application to use the modified definitions."]

thanks and best regards

sitaram

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Janez Pers<janez.pers at fe.uni-lj.si> wrote:
> Sitaram Chamarty wrote:
>
>>   - "...so that the user can modify the Library and then relink to
>> produce a modified executable containing the modified Library"
>>
>>   - "...include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing
>> the executable from it"
>>
>> all these are fine, but there seems to be nothing precluding the
>> closed source app from refusing to run with a modified LGPL library!
>> You're only assuring that an executable is produced, not that this
>> executable can be run and will behave substantially the same as the
>> original one
>
> You absolutely cannot demand that. New library may make certain
> interfaces obsolete or change API specs - what you demand is that the
> author of the closed source app continuously develops and adapts
> the closed source library, and releases new app whenever a library
> is modified. This way, LGPL author could cause every user of LGPL
> code to be in breach of the license whenever he pleases.
>
> I suspect (although I don't know) the LGPL wording was weaseled to
> essentially protect the LGPL code (from unlicensed use) more than
> protects its users from sticking with obsolete code. (Even though the spirit
> of GPL is opposite and GPL (not LGPL) provisions are geared primarily
> towards protecting the users.)
>
> In any case, the net effect of LGPL is that (if you obey the
> license) at least everyone is aware what you used in your code
> and what flaws it may contain.
>
> usual disclaimer: this is solely personal opinion, not advice.
>
>