4 ms·

> which substantially relies upon GPL libraries is considered a derivative work and would be a GPL violation if it's distributed without source code. I didn't

> which substantially relies upon GPL libraries is considered a derivative work and would be a GPL violation if it's distributed without source code. I didn't vote either way, but I'm not sure that this is the way the GPL works. As I understand it, you can distribute only binaries as long as you supply _on request_ the source code. FWIW the link to the GPL reads as quite tenuous and what I would guess the downvotes were for. > Similarly, an iOS app which substantially relies upon Apple's libraries in order to work is subject to whatever the terms Apple includes in their software license Yes, they are free to do what they want, barring regulation. Which is what this is. Deliberately loopholing around the legislation is an option, but a risky manoeuvre that might just invite more legislation.

simondotau 5y ago
Thank you, I did err in how I described the GPL. I have edited my post to correct this. > FWIW the link to the GPL reads as quite tenuous The link is that any developer—whether they're Linus Torvalds or Apple Inc—should be allowed to choose the terms in which they release their copyrightable works into the public. • One developer could choose the GPL. • Another developer could choose a license which requires a flat, one-off fee. • Yet another developer could chose a license that is free up front but mandates a revenue share under certain conditions, such as Epic Games does with Unreal Engine. In all instances, it is copyright law which enforces these license terms. So if you like the fact that Linus can distribute Linux under the GPL, you must also accept that some other company will have the right to distribute their software under their license.