acassis commented on PR #14328: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/14328#issuecomment-2415186572
> ALLOW_GPL_COMPONENTS is for both: GPL and LGPL: > > ``` > config ALLOW_GPL_COMPONENTS > bool "Use components that have GPL/LGPL licenses" > default n > ``` > > from ASF perspective both are in the same category: https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x We don't use uClibc as linked library but compile its code directly and there are some controversy about object-oriented programming and LGPL-licensed code (which was solved in LGPL v3, but this code is LGPL v2.1), so I don't know if LGPL has any meaning here at all. > > I think it's safer to keep copyleft licenses as one option, but maybe someone who knows something more about licenses has a different opinion. I'm not license expert either, but... In theory LGPL you don't need to release the source code, even with statically linked (but you need to release the file objects to be linked with new library version). But again this is a grey area, so maybe it is better keep GPL/LGPL as a GPL, this way the users will be aware of the issue. Maybe we should consider printing a message before the nsh> show up to let users know that the code is linked against LGPL and the source code need to be released case the product is used for commercial application -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@nuttx.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
