You know as well as I do that LGPL is not always an option. A very visible case is console games.
But yes, let's go back to lamenting the state of crypto libraries, we can at least agree on that.
But yes, let's go back to lamenting the state of crypto libraries, we can at least agree on that.
if you try to reverse engineer the protocol starcraft 2 uses with battlenet, you will have a hard time arguing in court that the LGPL license gives you permission to do so. If I recall right, starcarft 2 has some heavy restrictions on reverse engineering for this specific purpose, and I trust their lawyers to actually understand this difference.
For console games (which starcraft 2 is not), the console environment is incompatible with LGPL. If adaption of a security library depend on the console market, then such adaption won't happen.
A publisher hires a studio to make a game, which then gets published on platforms that actively prevent users from (compiling and) running their own software (consoles, iOS).
Since the user is not provided with the tools to replace a library used in a game, the terms of the LGPL cannot be met even if the studio were to release the source to their version of the library.
In fact, even if they released the source to their whole game (something the publisher would never allow) the LGPLv3 still cannot be met because of the anti-Tivoisation clause, which stipulates that users must be able to run their own compiled version of the software.
Also, I think the the user isn't prevented from recompiling and running altogether; a user can get a developer account. Although, I guess that presents an additional cost, something (L)GPL might be against.
I doubt very much that RMS would want to add such a clause. Remember, the GPL and LGPL are political tools as much as software licences. They exist to move the world in a certain direction. Adding such clauses would reduce their reason for existing.
If the library is statically linked (which is the case at least on consoles), the user would also need the game's source code. I think the restriction is enough to trigger the (L)GPL clauses anyway.
Tivo would just create a complicated enough corporate structure to provide the same shroud for themselves and will then be able to satisfy all requirements.