Timeline for If I'm using a GPL 3 library in my project, can I license my project under MIT license?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 4, 2016 at 11:38 | comment | added | Philippe Ombredanne | Linking against GPL-licensed code does not require to license the project as a whole until you effectively link and run. | |
| Oct 3, 2015 at 19:37 | vote | accept | Andrew Savinykh | ||
| Aug 20, 2015 at 17:49 | comment | added | apsillers♦ | @zespri To reiterate/rephrase Martijn's comment, the ability to comply with both licenses is exactly what "GPL compatible" means. It is possible and practical to comply with two licenses simultaneously; people do it all the time. In the case of GPL compatibility, the non-GPL license usually has a set of requirements that is a subset of GPL requirements. | |
| Aug 20, 2015 at 9:14 | comment | added | Martijn | @zespri People can use the combined work including the MIT licensed content under the GPL. People can also use the MIT licensed content under the MIT license. Because the MIT license has no restrictions that the GPL doesn't forbid, the MIT license is said to be "GPL compatible", and this construction is possible. A reasonable follow-up question could be "What does GPL compatibility mean" | |
| Aug 20, 2015 at 9:06 | comment | added | Andrew Savinykh | @Martijn, sorry I do not understand. That would mean that people will need to comply to both licenses, which does not make practical sense. | |
| Aug 20, 2015 at 8:35 | comment | added | Martijn | @zespri no. That you license the entire project under GPL doesn't mean you can't also license parts of the project MIT. | |
| Aug 20, 2015 at 8:29 | comment | added | Andrew Savinykh |
Thank you. Does not the entire work, as a whole that you cited prohibits licensing parts under MIT?
|
|
| Aug 20, 2015 at 8:15 | history | answered | congusbongus | CC BY-SA 3.0 |