Can MS legally use LGPL'd stuff?

[anphanax]

"5. A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of this License."

I don't see MS warming up to the LGPL, or "open source" period, but couldn't they do something like this:

A DLL based off a LGPL project, accompanied with an EXE that uses it. Seems to me that there would be isolation there (the EXE doesn't actually contain any of the LGPL code).

And yes, I noticed this:

"For example, if you distribute copies of the library, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that we gave you. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. If you link other code with the library, you must provide complete object files to the recipients, so that they can relink them with the library after making changes to the library and recompiling it. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights."

Just wondering :\

I can't think of a reason why they couldn't.

[worker201]

From a purely legal standpoint, I guess they could.  But everybody and their mother would be all over them like a rash if there was even a hint of impropriety.  I don't think Microsoft really wants that kind of attention.  Because they would have to open their source to prove that any allegations were untrue.  This would allow people to investigate and perhaps sneer at (or copy) their precious source - which still probably has bits of WordPerfect, Windows 3.1, and Altair Basic in it.

[Orethrius]

From a purely legal standpoint, I guess they could. But everybody and their mother would be all over them like a rash if there was even a hint of impropriety. I don't think Microsoft really wants that kind of attention. Because they would have to open their source to prove that any allegations were untrue. This would allow people to investigate and perhaps sneer at (or copy) their precious source - which still probably has bits of WordPerfect, Windows 3.1, and Altair Basic in it.

Don't forget Mosaic.

[Aloone_Jonez]

Can MS legally use LGPL'd stuff?
Yes, of course they can as long as they obide by the the terms of the LGPL.

[Orethrius]

Can MS legally use LGPL'd stuff?
Yes, of course they can as long as they obide by the the terms of the LGPL.

The problem exists in proving their blackboxed code is in violation of the licence.
This is the same reason why Microsoft is still in business, and why SCO hasn't imploded yet.

[Aloone_Jonez]

I thought LGPL'd code can be use in closed source propietry software, it's just GPL code that can't.

[piratePenguin]

I thought LGPL'd code can be use in closed source propietry software, it's just GPL code that can't.

No, the LGPL allows non-free software to link with the LGPL libraries.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html

The GNU Project has two principal licenses to use for libraries.  One is the GNU Library GPL; the other is the ordinary GNU GPL.  The choice of license makes a big difference: using the Library GPL permits use of the library in proprietary programs; using the ordinary GPL for a library makes it available only for free programs.

[piratePenguin]

If I made a library, say, libcrap, and released it under the GPL, then only free programs could link with and use my library. But if I released it under the LGPL (not in a million years), then free and non-free programs could link with and use my library. Either way, developers of non-free software can't take any of my code and use it in their non-free programs. But developers of free software can.

[Aloone_Jonez]

That's what I meant, if the LGPL'd library is statically linked then some of it's code becomes part of the binary, thus if the program is closed source then it's effectively using  LGPL'd code.

[piratePenguin]

That's what I meant, if the LGPL'd library is statically linked then some of it's code becomes part of the binary, thus if the program is closed source then it's effectively using LGPL'd code.

Yea they can do that.
I thought you meant the source code. My bad.

[Aloone_Jonez]

Yea they can do that.
I thought you meant the source code. My bad.

Well technically they still can use the source, but it must be un-modified if they change it they have to release the code.

[Kintaro]

If Microsoft follow the LGPL's rules, then they can use it.

Of course, if Microsoft don't follow its rules and use it anyway, there is nothing that can be done about it. Microsoft has enough resources to convert the USA into a facist state AFAIK. The fact that antitrust hasn't actually done anything to stop them yet almost proves that to be true.