3 ms·

I'm aware of that, but I'd like to know what specifically violates the GPL in the posed scenario. Your very link states that it's okay to distribute combination

I'm aware of that, but I'd like to know what specifically violates the GPL in the posed scenario. Your very link states that it's okay to distribute combinations of GPL-licensed code with code licensed under another, GPL-compatible license (which MIT is).

panzi 3y ago
Confuses me too. Maybe its because they didn't say that the code was also distributed and that they didn't explicitly say that they use a certain library that is under the GPL?
- hn_acker 3y ago
  It's the very act of distribution that contains the problem. If you use a GPL'd work in another work, your distribution of the other work must be GPL'd as well. GPL'd part + non-GPL'd-but-compatible part = GPL'd whole, but the parts still exist on their own under their respective original licenses. See Tomte's sibling comment to yours (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39840391 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39840391) and my own other comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39841923 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39841923).
  - panzi 3y ago
    I see. Thanks!
Tomte 3y ago
"provided the combination is released under the same GNU GPL version" That‘s not happening in Drew‘s second scenario.
hn_acker 3y ago
> Your very link states that it's okay to distribute combinations of GPL-licensed code with code licensed under another, GPL-compatible license (which MIT is). The same answer in the FAQ (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean) contains a caveat mentioned by Tomte's sibling comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39840391 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39840391): the distribution as a whole must be GPL-licensed. Suppose that you wrote an MIT-licensed Hello World function (one work) and have a copy of someone else's GPL-licensed FizzBuzz function (a separate work). If you distribute both works together (in the same repository, for example) then the combination (a new work) must be under the same GPL version (or a later version, if the license notice for the FizzBuzz function that function says something like "or any later version" [1]. If you write and then distribute a Fibonacci function which calls someone else's GPL'd add function (or your Fibonacci function body includes code from that GPL'd add function), then your distributed Fibonacci function must be under the same GPL version (or a later one, if the license grant lets you). [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html

panzi 3y ago

Confuses me too. Maybe its because they didn't say that the code was also distributed and that they didn't explicitly say that they use a certain library that is under the GPL?

hn_acker 3y ago
It's the very act of distribution that contains the problem. If you use a GPL'd work in another work, your distribution of the other work must be GPL'd as well. GPL'd part + non-GPL'd-but-compatible part = GPL'd whole, but the parts still exist on their own under their respective original licenses. See Tomte's sibling comment to yours (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39840391 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39840391) and my own other comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39841923 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39841923).
- panzi 3y ago
  I see. Thanks!

Tomte 3y ago

"provided the combination is released under the same GNU GPL version" That‘s not happening in Drew‘s second scenario.

hn_acker 3y ago

> Your very link states that it's okay to distribute combinations of GPL-licensed code with code licensed under another, GPL-compatible license (which MIT is). The same answer in the FAQ (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean) contains a caveat mentioned by Tomte's sibling comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39840391 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39840391): the distribution as a whole must be GPL-licensed. Suppose that you wrote an MIT-licensed Hello World function (one work) and have a copy of someone else's GPL-licensed FizzBuzz function (a separate work). If you distribute both works together (in the same repository, for example) then the combination (a new work) must be under the same GPL version (or a later version, if the license notice for the FizzBuzz function that function says something like "or any later version" [1]. If you write and then distribute a Fibonacci function which calls someone else's GPL'd add function (or your Fibonacci function body includes code from that GPL'd add function), then your distributed Fibonacci function must be under the same GPL version (or a later one, if the license grant lets you). [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html