It's a big mess of law and software politics, as usual. Under Lesser GPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.html Terms and conditions, it says:
"10. Each time you redistribute the Library (or any work based on the Library), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute, link with or modify the Library subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License. " Where "you" is the person who received the copy or who is redistributing the copy (licensee). Bottom line, the copyright holder/original licensor (developers) can still enforce compliance. I still don't understand why this is relevant with anything in this case since the initial case was to do with DRM as can be seen in this (biased in my opinion) article http://www.geek.com/articles/mobile/vlc-for-ios-likely-be-pulled-from-app-store-because-of-incompatibility-with-source-code-gpl-2010112/. So the licence change in fact changed...nothing? Maybe that's the reason why the VLC dev replied "maybe" when asked if VLC will return to appstore. So, BGE content does not need to be open, and license change will not prohibit lawsuits. Is there at least any specific appstore rule that explicitly lifts the restriction of installation on 5 devices for LGPL software or not? Links please. _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
