3 ms·
Exactly in a same way that GPL "violates" freedom of those not willing to provide a source for a binary blob.
by drdaeman 13y ago
Exactly in a same way that GPL "violates" freedom of those not willing to provide a source for a binary blob.
- NAFV_P 13y ago> Exactly in a same way that GPL "violates" freedom of those not willing to provide a source for a binary blob. The compatibility of licences seems to be where most of the issues occur. I've never heard a high-court judge mull this over, have you? BTW Wow, another self-confessed code-monkey. Nice to meet you drdaeman.
- tsuraan 13y agoNo, not in the same way at all. GPLv2 was strictly a distribution agreement. If you want to distribute a GPLv2-derived work, you must offer its source to anybody who gets the binary. That's using copyright law; you would normally have no right at all to distribute something copyrighted by somebody else, but they've given you permission to distribute so long as you agree to their distribution terms. AGPL/GPLv3 are usage licenses: it's not a simple matter of agreeing to a license when you're distributing the derived work, but instead you must follow the license whenever you're using the work. AGPL and GPLv3 are completely different beasts from GPLv2; they may fit your needs better, but they aren't the same thing at all.