3 ms·
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 i
by 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 agoIt'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 agoI see. Thanks!