[Openmcl-devel] swank/ccl license

[tfb at tfeb.org]

On 30 Jan 2018, at 12:58, Steven Nunez <steven.nunez at illation.com.hk> wrote:
> 
> I can shed some light on this from a commercial perspective. LLGPL and company are untested in the courts. Combined with a recent rise in the IP equivalent of ambulance chasers (see the case of BusyBox as an example), no commercial entity will go near anything with an encumbered license (meaning, compelled in any way to release source code).
>  

I don't want to get into a fight about this but I have more devices than I can easily count that came with addenda to their documentation explaining how you could get hold of all the *GPL source they were required to let you have.  My *iPhone's* legal notices include the GPL and I think the LGPL (it at least contains the GPL and a reference to the LGPL, I got fed up reading through the tiny text to see if the whole text of it was there).

So, no, this is just wrong, sorry.  It might be true for some pure software products.  It might also depend on how confident the company is in the lawyers it can buy (I imagine the answer for Apple is 'pretty confident').

--tim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.clozure.com/pipermail/openmcl-devel/attachments/20180130/43620008/attachment.htm>