4 ms·

How is this licensed under MIT and not GPL if it's a distro built on existing Linux code that's GPL-ed?

• jdsully 5y ago
  They can license their changes and userland as MIT. They would have to dual license any kernel changes with GPL though
  • lights0123 5y ago
    They're not distributing any GPL code, so their changes can be under any license, including proprietary. And if they were, they'd only need to license your changes under something GPL compatible (like MIT, as they've done)—no need to dual-license. Upstream Linux already includes many parts that weren't licensed as GPL, only something compatible.
• icegreentea2 5y ago
  As indicated here (https://github.com/microsoft/CBL-Mariner/blob/1.0/LICENSES-AND-NOTICES/LICENSES-MAP.md https://github.com/microsoft/CBL-Mariner/blob/1.0/LICENSES-A...), the MIT license is for source code actually contained in the repo. The bulk of this repo are spec files which define dependencies and how to build/incoporate, and call out dependency licenses. The actual output of this build would still have all the proper GPL goodness intact.
• severino 5y ago
  Can't they just say the code was randomly generated by Copilot so copyright and stuff like that doesn't apply?
• goodpoint 5y ago
  GPL does not require that. E.g. you can develop closed source code that runs on top of the Linux kernel.