3 ms·

Here's the citation on the FSF license page, in no uncertain terms: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.

by jnbiche 15y ago

Here's the citation on the FSF license page, in no uncertain terms: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL The compatibility matrix on the same page confirms it, again in no uncertain terms: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility Both of these come from are from the official FSF license document: "FSF GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE, Version 3, 29 June 2007 Copyright © 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. <http://fsf.org/> http://fsf.org/> Why did you think that it was an incredible statement?

jmillikin 15y ago
Both of those links support my position, and refute yours. Did you read them? edit: for the downvoters, here is a direct quote (emphasis added) from the first link (which covers combinations of GPL/non-GPL code): """If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any software which uses it has to be under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license?"""