&gt; The comment made the original assertion that LGPL versions 2.1 and 3 differ in that the changes in 3 makes it incompatible with App Store, where 2.1 was not. That&#x27;s a strong claim, and the onus is on that person to back it up.<p>Where was that claim made?  The question was brought up if the LGPLv3 is compatible with the app store and it was mentioned that LGPLv2 code <i>is presently</i> being distributed via the app store.<p>&gt; If you&#x27;re actually interested in LGPLv2.1&#x2F;App Store compatibility, the issue is so well-discussed that you can turn something up by searching for yourself.<p>It actually is not. There are various different opinions with regards to the LPGLv2 compatibility with the app store but there has not been any definite (eg: the FSF mentioned anything) answers to this dilemma.  In particular many of these discussions predate the current state of affairs with regards to iOS where dynamic linking is now possible.<p>&gt; A scenario where someone puts a claim out there, someone challenges it, and then the challenger is told, &quot;well prove it&#x27;s not true&quot;, is not the proper thing<p>I don&#x27;t remember making a claim. I precisely mentioned that from my understanding the distribution of LPGv2 software on the app store is possible judging by what is actively being done. Something that cannot be said for any other *GPL license.<p>In any case none of this has been challenged in court so any of this is interpretation of a license by random people on the internet with more or less credibility on the topic.