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.
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.)
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?
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.