Copyright infringement versus LGPL licensing dispute

[Will Roberson]

> If we were talking about portions of the source based on the LGPL
> Arduino libraries then LGPL would apply. But apparently that is not the
> case here so LGPL do not apply.
>
> Simply placing two source files in the same directory, or even
> aggregated into the same distribution tarball do not make them share the
> same license. Not even compiling them into a single binary program does
> when we talk about LGPL.

Once again, thank you everyone for your replies.

I have had a bit more time to look over the entire source, and
discovered that the original author used a second Arduino library.
Unlike with the first modified Arduino library mentioned, which
resides in separate files (which I don't use), portions of the second
library are actually integrated into several functions which I do use
for my project. While there's no documentation in the source, the
pieces of the code are completely identical to the library, and a post
on the author's blog describes how the library was integrated.

Based on all the replies here, I don't see how the program author can
get around the licensing with this second library use.