Malwarebytes' privacy VPN is Mullvad in a shady trenchcoat

Re:Malwarebytes' privacy VPN is Mullvad in a shady trenchcoat by CGamesPlay on Monday October 11, 2021 @09:50AM (#28828285)

If my dubious understanding of the GPL is correct, you can link to an LGPL DLL without assuming the LGPL. Distributing that DLL modified/unmodified would require also distributing the corresponding modified/unmodified source code. I don't think that in this case we have a violation (for the LGPL code) since it's unlikely that they modified the source code for the named libraries (and would provide links to the unmodified source code after application of legal pressure). I also would assume that the copyright notices required to be displayed are all listed somewhere buried in the about dialog of the running software.

[append]

> wintun.dll, from the Wintun project, without mentioning it, thus violating its license.

Also, after reading the license, I don't see this particular clause at all.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Malwarebytes' privacy VPN is Mullvad in a shady trenchcoat by contravariant on Monday October 11, 2021 @10:03AM (#28828403)

From what I remember someone should basically be free to modify the DLL distributed under the LGPL license, so they need to be able to access the corresponding source-code and whatever logic is necessary to link a new DLL to the application (if required).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Malwarebytes' privacy VPN is Mullvad in a shady trenchcoat by stonemetal12 on Monday October 11, 2021 @10:12AM (#28828504)

According to clause 4, you either provide enough source to compile and load a modified lib, or you use a dynamically linked lib. If you go the dynamic linking route no source distribution is required. I guess they figure the end user can get source from the library project themselves.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Malwarebytes' privacy VPN is Mullvad in a shady trenchcoat by wizzwizz4 on Monday October 11, 2021 @10:15AM (#28828546)

> If you go the dynamic linking route no source distribution is required.

For your code. The LGPL code still requires source distribution. (Plus, the BSD clause requires attribution.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Malwarebytes' privacy VPN is Mullvad in a shady trenchcoat by eurasiantiger on Monday October 11, 2021 @02:22PM (#28831263)

Certainly the authors of said LGPL code are distributing that source. Would it make sense to distribute the source of every .dll included in a project?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Malwarebytes' privacy VPN is Mullvad in a shady trenchcoat by wizzwizz4 on Monday October 11, 2021 @04:25PM (#28832642)

… Yes. That's your obligation under the LGPL. Pretty much your only obligation, actually – other than including the “this is this, by these people, licensed this way” boilerplate text.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Malwarebytes' privacy VPN is Mullvad in a shady trenchcoat by manquer on Monday October 11, 2021 @08:39PM (#28834678)

Alternatively you could include the offer to distribute

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Malwarebytes' privacy VPN is Mullvad in a shady trenchcoat by wizzwizz4 on Thursday October 14, 2021 @09:40AM (#28864067)

Only with (L)GPLv2, I believe.

[ Parent | on HN ]