Comments on: LGPL answers from the FSF http://www.blueskyonmars.com/2003/07/18/lgpl-answers-from-the-fsf/ Kevin Dangoor on Software Development Sat, 22 Nov 2008 03:51:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Paul Watson http://www.blueskyonmars.com/2003/07/18/lgpl-answers-from-the-fsf/#comment-191 Paul Watson Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.blueskyonmars.com/wordpress/?p=581#comment-191 Elsewhere in that thread, David Turner makes a couple points regarding requirement 1. You can obfuscate your code all you like; its only the license that must not deny the ability to reverse engineer. And when someone asks how one is to modify your code without having access to the source, he suggested a hex editor. I'm feeling a little better about the LGPL. However, this whole brouhaha illustrates one thing that I think is a genuine problem with the LGPL; it's verbosity. Its more than 10 times longer than some other open source licenses, and much more complex. Elsewhere in that thread, David Turner makes a couple points regarding requirement 1. You can obfuscate your code all you like; its only the license that must not deny the ability to reverse engineer. And when someone asks how one is to modify your code without having access to the source, he suggested a hex editor.

I’m feeling a little better about the LGPL. However, this whole brouhaha illustrates one thing that I think is a genuine problem with the LGPL; it’s verbosity. Its more than 10 times longer than some other open source licenses, and much more complex.

]]>