zlacker

[parent] [thread] 8 comments
1. IncRnd+(OP)[view] [source] 2022-10-16 23:07:35
The code is not GPL but is copyrighted in his name.
replies(3): >>naikro+6a >>aeyes+Ac >>naikro+Ue
◧
2. naikro+6a[view] [source] 2022-10-17 00:41:33
>>IncRnd+(OP)
some of it is lgpl and some of it is gpl. code contributed by others is licensed differently.
replies(1): >>IncRnd+pq
◧
3. aeyes+Ac[view] [source] 2022-10-17 01:05:18
>>IncRnd+(OP)
It is also allowed to be used under LGPL terms: https://github.com/DrTimothyAldenDavis/SuiteSparse/blob/mast...

But that doesn't make it any better.

replies(1): >>IncRnd+wq
◧
4. naikro+Ue[view] [source] 2022-10-17 01:29:33
>>IncRnd+(OP)
GPL'd code has a copyright owner.

those two things exist at the same time.

try reading a licence now and again!

replies(1): >>IncRnd+1q
◧◩
5. IncRnd+1q[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-10-17 03:39:13
>>naikro+Ue
Slow down there with the snarky comments. I never said GPL'd code doesn't have a copyright owner.
replies(1): >>twaw+jH
◧◩
6. IncRnd+pq[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-10-17 03:45:22
>>naikro+6a
The license for other code, even when in the same repo, doesn't apply to the license on the code that is under discussion here.
◧◩
7. IncRnd+wq[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-10-17 03:46:19
>>aeyes+Ac
Yes, but I was pointing that out to my parent poster, who erronesouly said the code was GPL licensed.
◧◩◪
8. twaw+jH[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-10-17 07:26:52
>>IncRnd+1q
Any code is proprietary by default. GNU GPL license lifts some restrictions, in excange of more code, but it doesnt work when license is broken. Look at cases about GPL violation.

Copiloot doesn't obey GPL license, so they need to obtain written permission and pay license fees to be able to use code in their product.

replies(1): >>IncRnd+WW
◧◩◪◨
9. IncRnd+WW[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-10-17 10:20:38
>>twaw+jH
Thank you for that, though it seems you replied to the wrong comment. That doesn't have to do with what I wrote.
[go to top]