Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 9th May 2011 21:46 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 472406
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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.
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.




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.