Malwarebytes' privacy VPN is Mullvad in a shady trenchcoat

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 ]