Timeline for LGPL 3 vs Code-Signing: gmp, mpir, [duplicate]
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 10, 2021 at 6:50 | history | closed | MadHatter♦ | Duplicate of (L)GPL software on devices provided for internal use | |
| Dec 9, 2021 at 17:24 | comment | added | apsillers♦ | It sounds to me at first blush that the requirement "users should also be able to create signed code that will run equally fine on the companies network" is too strict. If the resulting binary runs fine (signed by the user's own personal key, perhaps), then how it interacts over a network is outside the scope of what the (L)GPLv3 requires. The tivoization requirements pertain to the (refusal of) execution of the binary on some hardware, not network interactions. If you are talking about execution on company-owned hardware, I agree with @Bart above; in that case no distribution occurs. | |
| Dec 9, 2021 at 11:02 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Nov 9, 2021 at 8:06 | answer | added | Martin_in_AUT | timeline score: 0 | |
| May 12, 2021 at 6:07 | review | Close votes | |||
| May 28, 2021 at 3:01 | |||||
| May 12, 2021 at 5:51 | comment | added | Bart van Ingen Schenau | Does this answer your question? (L)GPL software on devices provided for internal use. In short: when it comes to software used by employees, it is the company that is the user of the software, not the individual employee. | |
| May 11, 2021 at 18:25 | history | migrated | from stackoverflow.com (revisions) | ||
| May 11, 2021 at 6:44 | comment | added | qrdl | While this is definitely an interesting and important topic, it is not for SO | |
| May 11, 2021 at 2:27 | history | asked | SevenUp | CC BY-SA 4.0 |