undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjimktrains29y ago0 comments

I think I answered the asked question. By using the GPL the developer is choosing to have the rest of their application abide by the GPL, just like the LGPL or MIT/BSD licenses. The later examples require fewer changes, however, but in principle you're still abiding by the license.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

reitanqild9y ago· 2 in thread

I asked what you call the thing that GPL-ed software do - not whose choice it was etc.

Basically: "if you compile GPL-licensed sw with your code the GPL-ed code <something something> so your code becomes GPL-licensed as well."

eeZah7Ux9y ago

Not true, your code does not "become" GPL.

IF you release your code it will be in violation of the GPL and you can: unpublish the release, or switch to a different non-GPL codebase, or reimplement the GPL part, or ask the authors to give you a dispensation or switch your code to GPL.

IF you don't release it and use the code internally you are fine.

It's at least 6 options, only one of which requires licensing your code as GPL.

slrz9y ago

I doesn't do anything. By including a GPL-licensed work into your software, you promise not to place any additional restrictions on the result.

And it's really just that. It doesn't force any license on your code. You can still release your individual contributions under a BSD-style license[1]. The one thing you can't do is placing additional restrictions onto your peers.

[1] The combined work may be effectively distributable only under GPL-like terms, of course.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse