-
as seen on Programmers
- Search for 'Programmers'
I have come across a book that claims that alterations
and augmentations to GPL works can be kept close-source
as long as these are not redistributed into the wild.
Therefore, customizations of websites deriving from
GPL packages need not be released under the GPL and
developers can earn profit on…
>>> More
-
as seen on Stack Overflow
- Search for 'Stack Overflow'
Let's say I write some code, which we'll call X. It uses some GPL code, let's call it library Y. Clearly I would have to release X with a GPL license. That's fine. My question is, can I additionally release X under a license such as MIT, so that if someone only wants X but not Y they don't need to…
>>> More
-
as seen on Programmers
- Search for 'Programmers'
I understand that linking to a program licensed under the GPL requires that you release the source of your program under the GPL as well, while the LGPL does not require this. The terminology of the (L)GPL is very clear about this.
#include "gpl_program.h"
means you'd have to license GPL, because…
>>> More
-
as seen on Programmers
- Search for 'Programmers'
There has been much debate over whether or not merely linking to a piece of code makes it a derivative work. I know FSF says "yes", so according to them I can't dynamically link a non-GPL compatible program to a GPL library and distribute the whole. But I could do that for private use, as long as…
>>> More
-
as seen on Programmers
- Search for 'Programmers'
I've recently run into some argument with a person that claims to be a lawyer (I have my suspicions about this not being completely true, though).
As far as I know, copying even one line of code from GPLed program into proprietary body of code requires you to release the whole thing under GPL, if…
>>> More
