undefined

points

[-]

> Strange this with this whole incident apart from the rewrite/LLM part is the general misundrstanding of the licences. LGPL being a pretty permissive one going as far as allowing one to incorporate it in propriety code without the linking reciprocity clause

The short version is that chardet is a dependency of requests which is very popular, and you cannot distribute PyInstaller/PyOxidizer builds with chardet due to how these systems bundle up dependencies.

[1]: https://velovix.github.io/post/lgpl-gpl-license-compliance-w...

[2]: https://github.com/indygreg/PyOxidizer/issues/142

by rzerowan2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Ok thanks for the background on that - again though this would be a painpoint on the packagers - but fully in line with the intentions of the GPL and with the LGPL to enpower the end user to be able to swap/update/tinker as they see fit.

As i recall there were some similar situations in regards to licences for distro builders regarding graphicsdrivers and even mp3 decoders wherer there was a song and dance the end user had to go through to legally install them during/after setup.

Or better yet to make a truly api compatible re-implementation to use with the license that they want to use, since what they have done i surmise would fall under a derivative work.So they havent really accomplised what they wanted - and instead introduced an unacceptable amount of risk to whoever uses the library going forward.

Kinda reminds me of what the Inderner Archive did during the pandemic with the digital lending library.Pushing the boundaries to test them and establish precedence. in any case let see how it plays out.