The disclaimer is only here so I don't come across as arrogant know-it-all, I'm trying to argue a point, not trying to come across as an asshat. I sometimes fail at making the distinction clear.
This also depends on what you plan to do. If the core camera libs and main app is LGPL, you can write your own app(I hate that word, what was wrong with 'program'/'application'
, to control the camera what whatever level is provided and if David has provided an API(And hopefully he will! 'libkron' maybe?
, interface with the main camera control interface all without releasing any of your code.
As far as I can tell, from the point of LGPL is that the license ends at the API/library boundary. From the license: "A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of this License."
So you can write your own programs that do anything from completely take control over the camera to a simple trigger library add-on and keep your code to yourself. The ONLY code you will have to release is any changes made to David or the OS/it's libs/programs, then I believe it would be, at the very least, good manners to release those improvements back for others to enjoy.
How many other cameras have this level of openness? And of those how many are high speed? I don't like the idea of it being open and then someone making improvements to the main software without paying it forward by sharing. Add-ons sure! Separate control programs? Sure! Core improvements? No. If you want to keep your code to yourself, make your own camera, or contact David for a special licence.
Someone who receives this camera after the promotional ones are under no obligation to even mention that they use it and many won't, so I don't consider that a valid argument.
No, I'm trying to argue that this camera would have been much less practical without the GPL and LGPL code running the OS. And while under no obligation, it would be nice if the camera was as open as piratical on top of that so others could build upon that work and give back themselves in the same tradition.
This is why I'm also hoping that when the camera hits end of life in however many years that takes, everything is opened so existing cameras can continue to be improved and worked on. But that is another point entirely.
And... that was way too long and rambling. Sorry, hopefully at least a few points are clear.