4 ms·
The code is not GPL but is copyrighted in his name.
by IncRnd 4y ago
The code is not GPL but is copyrighted in his name.
- naikrovek 4y agosome of it is lgpl and some of it is gpl. code contributed by others is licensed differently.
- IncRnd 4y agoThe license for other code, even when in the same repo, doesn't apply to the license on the code that is under discussion here.
- aeyes 4y agoIt is also allowed to be used under LGPL terms: https://github.com/DrTimothyAldenDavis/SuiteSparse/blob/master/CSparse/Doc/License.txt https://github.com/DrTimothyAldenDavis/SuiteSparse/blob/mast... But that doesn't make it any better.
- IncRnd 4y agoYes, but I was pointing that out to my parent poster, who erronesouly said the code was GPL licensed.
- naikrovek 4y agoGPL'd code has a copyright owner. those two things exist at the same time. try reading a licence now and again!
- IncRnd 4y agoSlow down there with the snarky comments. I never said GPL'd code doesn't have a copyright owner.
- twaw 4y agoAny code is proprietary by default. GNU GPL license lifts some restrictions, in excange of more code, but it doesnt work when license is broken. Look at cases about GPL violation. Copiloot doesn't obey GPL license, so they need to obtain written permission and pay license fees to be able to use code in their product.
- IncRnd 4y agoThank you for that, though it seems you replied to the wrong comment. That doesn't have to do with what I wrote.