5 ms·

Free software reimplementation projects go to great pains to avoid code written by people who have looked at proprietary source. I hope this rewrite extends the

• jessaustin 12y ago
  I'm a big GNU fan, and actually prefer to use the AGPL, but I don't understand this opinion. It seems to contradict the whole concept of free software. EDIT: Thanks for the informative responses! This sort of effort might ought to receive the occasional audit, which probably could be done in semi-automated fashion.
  • dllthomas 12y ago
    Looking at source for something implementing the same thing opens you to accusations of being a derivative work. If the licenses are compatible, then this is no downside. If the licenses are incompatible, this makes it harder to defend against a lawsuit (even if you probably, in principle, remain in the right).
    • cwyers 12y ago
      The MIT license is compatible with the GPL; you can use MIT-licensed code in GPL projects.
      • icebraining 12y ago
        Yes, but the reverse is not true; you can't use GPL-licensed code on your project and still distribute it all as MIT-licensed.
        • gillianseed 12y ago
          It's true that the GPL-licenced code will remain GPL licenced, the MIT-licenced code will remain available under MIT though.
      • dllthomas 12y ago
        Yes. Compatibility is not a commutative relationship.
        • startling 12y ago
          s/commutative/symmetric
          • dllthomas 12y ago
            That would have been more correct, yes.
  • icebraining 12y ago
    If someone were to write MIT licensed code that was heavily "inspired"[1] by reading GPL licensed code, people could then take that MIT licensed code and make proprietary clones and forks, effectively bypassing the GPL restrictions. It'd be essentially "code laundering". [1] in a copyright infringing way, as defined by the courts in your preferred jurisdiction