GPL License Compliance
The cluster focuses on debates about GPL license requirements, such as distributing source code for derivatives, violations when combining with closed-source code, and obligations for users and distributors.
Activity Over Time
Top Contributors
Keywords
Sample Comments
They are possibly distributing a derivative work without releasing the source code, if it GPL licensed.
Even if it was GPL, it doesn't mean they would have to give anyone the source code.
Yes it's their code and they can license it to be at least GPL though
Only if you are distributing the combined work and not giving the source code along with it. Preventing that is the whole point of GPL.
You cannot have GPL-licensed code in closed-source code. It's a violation of the license so the code ceases to be GPL-licensed and becomes unlicensed. If you distribute that code, in source or binary form, you can get sued by the copyright holders which is what this case is about.
Yes! Unlike other licenses, the GPL explicitly covers distribution, not use.
Doesn't seem incorrect if, extra steps aside, the company is ultimately obligated to provide the source code by the terms of the GPL.
The source never gets distributed to the end user, so there's no violation of the GPL. (This use case / loophole is the reason the AGPL was written.)
GPL code and its derivatives can't be distributed with additional restrictions.
Yes, the GPL in general has been upheld in court. The gist is that the GPL is the only thing giving anyone any right at all to distribute code licensed under it. If you don’t follow its terms, you no longer have that permission.The question isn’t whether the GPL can restrict you from doing something. It’s just that in the absence of the GPL, you fall back to the default legal rights where you’re not allowed to make copies of that code.