3 ms·
I'll have to brush up on this, GPL that's not seen by people say it does something in messaging or part of DNS or something, it would still have to be public? U
by jcun4128 5y ago
I'll have to brush up on this, GPL that's not seen by people say it does something in messaging or part of DNS or something, it would still have to be public? Use case is part of some web-app that isn't installed.
- dfatduck 5y agoI am quite sure that you only need to publish the source if you are distributing the GPLed code.
- singlow 5y agoIf its running on your server, then you aren't distributing it. There are licenses like AGPL that do try to limit that usage but GPL does not. Now if it is a web app that has client code that gets executed in the browser, that is distributed to the end user and GPL would apply, so you would need to include license notifications for that within your app or as part of the source code distributed. In that case you are already distributing source but you may need to make an unobfuscated source available if your distribution is minified/uglified.
- jcun4128 5y agoYANAL ha, but I was curious even if we did have to disclose the specific GPL piece of software, do we only have to release that part? Not the entire app. > web app that has client code that gets executed in the browser, That's the technicality stuff, the client triggers an event, that then uses this GPL piece of code that is on the server. I went through our stuff (mostly NPM) and they all are either Apache/MIT but there was one piece like ahh... Anyway not making money yet but will bring this up for review with legal. Thanks