Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 9th May 2011 21:46 UTC
Apple Apple has released the source code for WebKit in iOS 4.3, which it had been withholding for eight weeks. However, according yo Jay 'saurik' Freeman, they are still not, and never have been, in compliance with the LGPL. "Apple's provided source code (which /is/ heavily modified for the iPhone) [...] isn't even complete enough to compile (it is missing a bunch of code for the WAK* classes), so Apple has simply never been in compliance with this license," Saurik writes. So, it would seem that Apple is still violating the LGPL, and has been doing so for a very long time. Funny how this never makes it to mainstream technology sites. I guess they find their pre-release review devices more important.
Thread beginning with comment 472404
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Or Not
by Carewolf on Mon 9th May 2011 22:25 UTC
Carewolf
Member since:
2005-09-08

This is getting silly. I love messing with the heads of Apple's fanhoes as much as anybody, but I have to defend Apple here, this is a non-story.

That fact that the shipped tar-balls does not compile does prove they are violating the LGPL.

When talking about WebCore I see nothing missing. What appears to be a problem here is that the iOS version doesn't ship with platform- or application-bindings.

Being LGPL the library is allowed to link to closed source binaries, so is it allowed to link to unpublished APIs?? - I don't know. It would probably be against GPLv3, but LGPLv2?? I am not a lawyer, but I don't think so.

To be honest, I haven't even noticed the source should have been delayed, it is all there in Git, and has been there the whole time. As long back as two months ago I based some of my work on changes Apple made for iOS 4.3.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Or Not
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Mon 9th May 2011 22:33 in reply to "Or Not"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Yeah, a one paragraph description isn't quite enough for me to say 100% with out a doubt that Apple's in violation.

I understand that ovbiously closed source binaries can link to a LGPL licensed library. But is the inverse true? I don't think it is.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Or Not
by JAlexoid on Tue 10th May 2011 00:26 in reply to "RE: Or Not"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Yeah, a one paragraph description isn't quite enough for me to say 100% with out a doubt that Apple's in violation.

I understand that ovbiously closed source binaries can link to a LGPL licensed library. But is the inverse true? I don't think it is.


Yeah both LGPL and GPL code can link to closed source software. But resulting binaries are not distributable without breaking (L)GPL.
That is how nVidia drivers work - the glue-code is GPL, the binary blob is proprietary licensed, the resulting kernel module is is not distributable.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: Or Not
by _xmv on Mon 9th May 2011 23:28 in reply to "Or Not"
_xmv Member since:
2008-12-09

You don't need to be a lawyer to read the GPLv2, v3 and LGPL licenses. They're very simple.
Then you'll see that making such difference betweenv2 and v3 is non-sense.

10min of your life to read. Think about it. You'll appear smarter next time you talk about it ;-)

Specially you wanna read this
LGPLV2:

For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the executable from it.

Edited 2011-05-09 23:30 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Or Not
by Carewolf on Tue 10th May 2011 11:46 in reply to "RE: Or Not"
Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

A library is not an executable.

Add to that, that WebKit might not be compilable to iOS, but I have no problem compiling and using it on Linux, including the iOS 4.3 changes.

Reply Parent Score: 1