LGPL_3_ , you mean
Qt was already only available through LGPL3 (and GPL2) at that version. But they can't use GPL2 because their UI is closed source, or at least I can't find it there. So it is LGPL3.
Otherwise Jolla would also be able to "upgrade" their Qt.
Shall we sue?

I am not sure if they are trying to avoid GPL3 software (and failing), or they are just using very very old versions overall.

I had a quick look at orange.fr and they are not using GPL3 either; however they ship ( https://opensource.orange.com/en/sof...fware/livebox/ ) the full build instructions, so it looks like they tried to comply. However, I am not sure if I can flash any firmware on the Livebox; from the webUI I can only see self-update.

In any case, fair enough. We have another example of GPL3-avoiding companies. So far: Apple, Jolla, car companies, big Telcos.

^ Yes, Apple was (probably still is) famous for shipping an ancient version of bash only becaue it's the last version that was GPL2 licensed.

Also, it doesn't make much sense to use a heavyweight like bash as the default system bootup shell. I just changed that on my desktop and it cut boot times in half.
I chose dash, but busybox makes a lot of sense, too.

No, at least not for French law, as the aforementioned source points out (in detail).

Nope (for that my French is still good enough):

• French: "possession" contre "propriété"
• Spanish: "posesión" versus "propiedad"

And they have quite a different meaning in the legal context, see (again).

I am not sure I agree. The concept exists for sure, but I am not sure if this means the same. Could you quote the relevant parts?


Also, if we go towards the "transfer of possession" route (as in real state / goods), we lead into another nonsensical conclusion: that when the museum lends me a tablet I apparently get the right to use it for any purpose as well as the right to its profits.

I think that the closest legal thing to the "museum tablet" scenario as well as the "company phone" thing would be commodate / prêt a l'usage / prestamo de uso (it's present by the same name in both civil codes). In these cases the loan is usually free, and the only right you get is usage for that specific purpose only. The lender remains propietaire, will still pay for the maintanance, have the right to the profits, etc. The moment you try to use the loaned item for something other than what was agreed, or for more time than agreed, then you do have to pay the maintance+repair for the item. In addition to that you have to return the item in the same state/configuration.

I do not see how this involves transfer of possession and the attached rights (e.g. claiming the proprieté of the object after N years of possession? claiming the fruits of the object? etc. etc.) And even if you could, since you cannot really use the object for any purpose you want, most definitely not installing your software on it, it's going to be hard to claim that the GPLv3 "conveyance" applies.