Sparrow

@CannonFodder @Librerian
Just a heads up, this isn’t a good look for your Robotics business. As the owner, you’re always representing your company. Getting into arguments and insulting people online doesn’t exactly scream professionalism, or customer trust. Might want to think about how this reflects on your business.

@CannonFodder The switching of your linking afterward doesn’t change the requirement you violated and needed to comply with, which was to open source the code that touched it.

No, it wouldn’t and shouldn’t have just dropped all the required because you complied when caught; this is equivalent to saying you parked in a handicap spot and then, when asked, moved your car and said you expected not to get fined now and the police are harassing you for such.

I get the frustration, but I know as a business owner you wouldn’t sign a legal document without reading it or understanding what you’re setting yourself up for. Yet this seems to be exactly your process with software licenses. You need a Software Composition Analysis (SCA) if you do not have the time or the energy to read the licenses; this will prevent you from falling into the same hole.

PS: this has been heavily tried in court look at QT LPGL licensing enforcement cases this is a known license and known requirements.

#foss #opensource #licensing

@CannonFodder Policy? It’s the legal license you agreed to when you copied their code. It’s not like they rug pulled you; it’s open, and you should have read it before you even started. If you are commercial, look into FOSSA; you need an SCA for license compliance. Your way around this for LGPL was to make a fork and then compile the fork and use those compiled libraries if you needed airgapped. The moment anything touches that code, like if you static link all code that is touching it now needs to now be public too. If you dynamically link as long as the full code for that file is open you’re covered.

I’m actually baffled you didn’t even bother reading their license for a commercial product and chalked it up to they have some policy.

@CannonFodder @Neptr You were bundling LGPL source into your project. Their request was right, you were violating their license; if you had just used upstream FFmpeg by requiring systems to install it from the package i.e .deb dependency or downloading it directly from their releases and having their binary fully separate, you wouldn’t have had any pushback.

@prettybunnys @gigachad Debian actively prevents you from changing their version to stop you from messing up the system. Consider Pipx or UV to use and install wherever other things you wanted to that way and you won’t have a problem…