> I'm sorry, but "issue-rule-application-conclusion" is the standard analytical framework for questions of this nature.
Do you, heh, have any case law to that effect? No, that's silly. "You're shipping my code and have to stop" is an open and shut case. That no one has bothered to prosecute such a case against an iOS app is notable, but not proof of anything but inertia.
See, e.g., Licea v. Caraway Home Inc., 655 F. Supp. 3d 954, 968 (C.D.Cal. 2023) ("Indeed, at no point does Plaintiff bother to explain why any of his cited authorities are relevant to the instant action or how they should apply. Every law student is taught a variation on the 'issue, rule, application, conclusion' (IRAC) method for legal analysis.").
HN is for intellectual curiosity. As a result, if you want to discuss legal analysis with a lawyer on an article about a legal topic, I suggest you listen and learn, rather than insisting that others meet you in the middle on fundamental tools of analysis. And in particular, criticizing those frameworks as "arbitrary" or "made up" is dishonest and completely inappropriate.
In this case, after several days of back and forth, nobody has offered any argument for why the terms of the LGPL are incompatible with iOS apps. At this point it's pretty obvious that all of you are just trolling.
Do you, heh, have any case law to that effect? No, that's silly. "You're shipping my code and have to stop" is an open and shut case. That no one has bothered to prosecute such a case against an iOS app is notable, but not proof of anything but inertia.