On 2015-03-04 07:16 AM, Reincke, Karsten wrote:
Now, I am indeed sure that all important open source licenses including the LGPL-v2 allow reverse engineering only in case of distributing statically linked programs. Moreover: I am definitely sure, that none of these open source licenses requires to allow reverse engineering in case of distributing dynamically linkable programs and that particularly even the LGPL-v2 does not require reverse engineering in case of distributing dynamically linkable programs.
I don't understand where you're coming from. For the sake of argument, let's say that the above holds, and LGPL v2 allows reverse engineering. Cui bono? Who benefits?
"...companies are not able to protect these ‘private’ programs against revealing the embedded business relevant secrets..."
So, if the company doesn't link to LGPL'ed software, then they're protected from having their binary reverse engineered?
I suppose the competitors of the original company would benefit from such a scenario, provided they wanted to reverse engineer the first companies software. For the sake of argument, this is being accepted as fact.
How does *not* linking against LGPL'ed libraries *protect* the company from having their product reverse engineered? Surely some software, sometimes, gets reverse engineered -- legally. By what mechanism would *avoiding* LGPL'ed libraries prevent reverse engineering?
Please consider carefully your usage of requires versus allows. I think the language barrier isn't helping, but I see now where you're coming from, or at least what your concern is. Again, what is the mechanism by which *properietary* software *prevents* reverse engineering?
-Thufir _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
