Hmm, I don’t think that’s quite the same. The developer simply wasn’t able to compile the source code, which is a pretty clear requirement in the LGPL 2.1:
For an executable, the required form of the “work that uses the Library” must include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the executable from it.
The posted link does not appear to contain the same statement as what I read from the SFC:
Steck’s work showed that despite being a “Lesser” license than GPL, LGPLv2.1 still guarantees users the right to repair, modify and reinstall modified versions of the software on their device.
This is why I believed that the lack of an anti-tivoization clause was being somehow retroactively applied to v2.
Hmm, I don’t think that’s quite the same. The developer simply wasn’t able to compile the source code, which is a pretty clear requirement in the LGPL 2.1:
The posted link does not appear to contain the same statement as what I read from the SFC:
This is why I believed that the lack of an anti-tivoization clause was being somehow retroactively applied to v2.