News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Why I replaced MIT with copyleft license for Nodemailer. Parent comment

Re:Why I replaced MIT with copyleft license for Nodemailer by fiddlerwoaroof on Thursday February 02, 2017 @09:30PM (#13557147)
So, someone told me that your code need not be GPL but that the combination of your code + a gpled program must be.

IANAL, but this sounded reasonable to me.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why I replaced MIT with copyleft license for Nodemailer by Crespyl on Friday February 03, 2017 @09:58AM (#13560159)
The trick is in what constitutes "combination", particularly re. static vs. dynamic linking.

My understanding is that, at least with LGPL, you can have a closed source program distributed with a LGPL shared object/dll (plus license text) that gets loaded dynamically, but I don't think you can do that with GPL proper.

Static linking (IIUC) is right out (for closed source projects).

[ Parent | on HN ]