4 ms·
You're being very terse and confrontational. What is your definition of open source? If you go by the definition provided by the Open Source Initiative the fo
by antt 8y ago
You're being very terse and confrontational.
What is your definition of open source?
If you go by the definition provided by the Open Source Initiative the following section means the GPL isn't an open license because it requires all software linked to it to be provided under the GPL too:
<quote>
9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.
</quote>
https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
- detaro 8y agoGPL does not place restrictions on software that is distributed along with a GPL licensed piece of software. It places restrictions on software it is combined with.
- jmillikin 8y agoI am using the definition you linked to: The OSI's definition. > If you go by the definition provided by the Open Source > Initiative the following section means the GPL isn't an > open license because it requires all software linked to > it to be provided under the GPL too: This is not correct, and your own quote from the OSI site does not support your assertion. The GPL does not require that all portions of a derived work come from GPL'd code, and even if it did, that would not violate the OSI definition (which deals with combining works together for storage + transmission). I don't know why you think the GPL isn't an open-source license, when it's listed prominently on https://opensource.org/licenses https://opensource.org/licenses as OSI-approved.