LIcensing of libwp* and its effect on that of libcdr and libvisio

Tor Lillqvist tml at
Tue Feb 28 03:56:39 PST 2012

> requires the result to be LGPL, the latter only has smaller requirements,
> which can be satisfied by providing a notice and our source code.

Providing source code (or pre-built object files even), is not enough,

I am thinking from the perspective of somebody wanting to distribute
an app using LibreOffice code, and potentially then also libwp* code,
on the iOS App Store. (LibreOffice itself I hope by then is LGPL/MPL,
MPL being the license that would be used in this case.)

As long as there is a risk that even one of the unknown number of
people holding copyright to libwp* doesn't approve of that, I wouldn't
suggest risking it... (The same holds for other LGPL libraries LO
potentially can use.)

It's not hard to interpret LGPLv2 so that it prevents that kind of
DRM-"encumbered" distribution of binaries. (After all, it was written
in frigging 1991.) No matter how good intent the app developer has,
how nicely he/she would provide source to everything , etc.

(Back in 1991 most compilers used on what was then normal desktop Unix
systems were definitely not free (in any sense), so the fact that iOS
development program membership (needed to distribute apps through the
App Store) costs €79/a is fairly irrelevant, I think, from LGPLv2's
point of view. It's the DRM and review process that somebody might say
is unacceptable. I think. But, IANAL.)

(And as for LGPLv3, it probably is even easier to interpret it in this
way, or perhaps one of its intents is specifically to prevent such
distribution? I say this based only on my prejudice and vague
knowledge of FSF's and their Dear Leader's opinions of Apple and their


More information about the LibreOffice mailing list