3 ms·

> ... or just go with it and have it be open source? They didn't have the legal right to do so.

• Aachen 5y ago
  How is that? The company added code to a GPL project, that means it is a derivative work and also comes with software freedoms, or at least that's how the story reads to me since there is no mention of other claims or parties to the mix. That means the company owns the copyright to the added code and is free to comply with the contract (license).
  • cowsandmilk 5y ago
    Company A writes library with commercial license. Company B uses that library and a GPL library in a product. They distribute the product. Company B has no right to relive se Company A’s commercially licensed library under the GPL. Hence, stop distribution and replace GPL library.
    • Aachen 5y ago
      See: > ... since there is no mention of other claims or parties to the mix [like company A]. That means the company [B] owns the copyright to the added code and is free to comply with the contract (license). I'm also not sure whether the confidentiality clause would weigh heavier than a 'must provide source on request' clause, perhaps it could be resolved by not distributing the part that's covered by the confidentiality clause since another standalone library is clearly not a derivative work of the GPL-licensed library. Then only B has to distribute what they made for everyone's benefit.