I think I'm clearly stating my assumptions. GPL3 and LGPL3 requires you to enable the user to replace the GPL/LGPL3 code on your device with the users own version of said code. It does not matter if you link statically.
Now, it would be possible let the user do this and not let it be a problem for your product (in terms of security, reverse engineering, ip theft, etc) but it is more and harder work.
I have used both older version of Qt (LGPL2) without licensing and newer (LGPL3) with licensing in commercial products. The former was not a problem. But using LGPL3 Qt without licensing in a commercial embedded product is a headache (if you are concerned about the problems it might bring), according to me.
> But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM).
- If you ship embedded product where the code is not supposed to be easily upgraded, you don't have to provide means to do that. Anti-Tivoization applies to cases like TiVo where they added DRM to prevent users from upgrading but allowing you to upgrade.
- Also, anti-Tivziation clauses don't apply software distributed to business. Medical devices or safety critical software etc. Any devices sold to business.
Now, it would be possible let the user do this and not let it be a problem for your product (in terms of security, reverse engineering, ip theft, etc) but it is more and harder work.
I have used both older version of Qt (LGPL2) without licensing and newer (LGPL3) with licensing in commercial products. The former was not a problem. But using LGPL3 Qt without licensing in a commercial embedded product is a headache (if you are concerned about the problems it might bring), according to me.
Hence, I wish Flutter all the best.