Even better: XCP violates the LGPL

This one falls in the “you’ve got to be kidding me” category. As if the undisclosed replacement of key system components, rootkit vulnerabilities introduced on infected systems, and boorish response to public criticism weren’t enough, it looks like the DRM contains stretches of code that are identical to LAME, an open-source MP3 encoder which is licensed under the lesser GPL (LGPL). If this is true, the software is in violation of the LGPL license.

5 Responses to “Even better: XCP violates the LGPL”

  1. Jordi Says:

    I’m probably wrong, but I think the LGPL allows code to be taken for other projects without the requirement that the project developed using that code is in turn LGPL…

    Any confirmation/correction, please?

  2. John Says:

    True, but it does require that you provide the source code for LAME itself, plus any modifications you made to it. I’m pretty sure it also requires you to allow reverse engineering.

  3. Brian Kemp Says:

    I bet it’s just a signature for the LAME encoder–if they ripped segments of code, I’d be surprised (and they’d be liable).

    The player software plays WMA, not mp3, so it shouldn’t be using LAME.

  4. brem Says:

    It does not violate LGPL. LGPL allows for commercial use and protects surrounding “software” in use of the “LAME” library. If however, they modified LAME and wanted to distribute it, well, the GPL applies from this part on.


  5. brem Says:

    However, I do believe that if they are indeed using LAME, they should say so in they About or something…



Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.