[License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses

[Tzeng, Nigel H.]

Well, the provided text in the document does not appear to me to be
conclusive that permitting reverse engineering is not required from LGPL
users.  There¹s interesting analysis of the wording but the real ³missing
step² for me would be that your analysis would actually hold up in a court
of law.  Dependence on analysis of the ³logical structure of the sentence²
seems mildly problematic to me.

If this mattered significantly to me (reverse engineering) I¹d simply
assert that using Apache and BSD/MIT licensed code is just better and to
continue to avoid LGPL.  Which is what companies do and will likely
continue to do until there is supporting case law in the jurisdictions
that matter to them (US, EU, China, etc) that this isn¹t actually required
for what they wish to do with such libraries.  That would be the most
prudent and conservative course.  So Mr. Tilly isn¹t obstructing anything.

Now if DT were to offer indemnification for any losses incurred based on
your analysis...



On 3/6/15, 4:09 AM, "Reincke, Karsten" <k.reincke at telekom.de> wrote:

>Dear Mr. Tilly;
>
>On a first glance, your mail seems to be clear an reasonable.
>Unfortunately you are impeding the everyday work of those who want and
>must convince and support their companies, employees and colleagues to
>use free software compliantly. Let me explain, how your obstruction comes
>into being...
>
>Sincerely
>Karsten Reincke
>
>-- 
>Deutsche Telekom Technik GmbH  / Infrastructure Cloud
>Karsten Reincke, PMP®, Senior Experte Key Projekte - Open Stack
>Komplexitäts- und Compliancemanagement
>[ komplette Signatur einblenden:
>http://opensource.telekom.net/kreincke/kr-dtag-sign-de.txt ]
>
>_______________________________________________
>License-discuss mailing list
>License-discuss at opensource.org
>http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss