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 badsectoracula on Friday February 03, 2017 @02:22AM (#13558334)
> It looks very LGPL-like in spirit. It's hard to know if you can use it in something commercial or not, though.

You can, as much as you can use any copyleft license - ie. you have to make the source code of the files available. One thing to keep in mind though is that in EU the distinction between strong and weak copyleft (ie. GPL vs LGPL) probably doesn't exist - it hasn't been explicitly proven in court, but there is a past case which shows that the most likely interpretation is that there isn't such a distinction and in EU merely linking does not create a derivative work (you can read about this in this page from the official EC EUPL site https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/community/eupl/news/why-viral-li... which also explains some issues the current wordings have and why the case is not 100% clear).

You can read more about EUPL and how it can be used here: http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/view/91/164

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why I replaced MIT with copyleft license for Nodemailer by reality_czech on Friday February 03, 2017 @07:31PM (#13564694)
It seems like they should publish a directive clarifying this, if they really want to make it clear. In any case, viral licensing exists in the US, which is enough to make the EUPL toxic to nearly all companies.
[ Parent | on HN ]