Hot answers tagged

32

The exception says that “you may include it”, where it is the build scripts generated by autoconf. This is not a broad GPL exception that would apply to any GPL-licensed software. The autotools authors are not the copyright holders of other GPL-licensed software and are therefore not authorized to issue such exceptions. Autoconf needs such an exception for ...


25

You could, but I wouldn't bother. Your application invokes a GPLed binary via fork-and-exec, and as we have written many times here (example), that means it's likely a separate work for GPL purposes. So shipping a copy of ffmpeg with your binary won't oblige you to release your binary under GPL, and it will ensure you can control the version that people ...


16

On the assumption that your software is perfectly standard userspace type software which starts running well after the kernel has booted etc, then I would agree with your assessment - your software is an independent work from U-Boot, so your product is an aggregation and the GPL does not extend to your software. (As an aside, this does not exempt you from ...


12

This depends on exactly what they've said. If it's We'd rather you didn't use non-stable libraries with this product. If you do this, we won't help you. that's absolutely fine, and very similar to the position the Linux kernel community take with non-open source modules in the kernel. Even something like We'd rather you didn't use non-stable libraries ...


6

U-boot's license requires you to provide the source-code for U-boot (including any modifications you made) to anybody that asks for it. U-boot typically doesn't interact with your system after booting, and neither will its license. In general, GPLv2 software is OK to ship on a product that also includes closed-source software. It won't force you to give away ...


5

No As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, if you distribute this file as part of a program that contains a configuration script generated by Autoconf, you may include it under the same distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program. This paragraph refers to the one file it is found in - not the entire software product you ...


4

You can easily create an installer which first downloads and installs the GPL-licensed binary and then installs your own proprietary app. Your question is similar to the one answered here: Best way to include GPL-licensed code in an MIT-licensed library and the answer seems to apply to your problem.


2

[...] xz, uses multiple licenses (public domain, LGPLv2.1+, GPLv2+). I wish to avoid using GPLv2+ as it requires disclosure of the entire source code. Is there a way in using the XZ package without the disclosure, or am I missing something? As mentioned in the COPYING file of XZ, different parts of that project are under different licenses. The majority of ...


1

if I switch my main application to use Autoconf or Libtool, then I can bundle GPL code under proprietary terms? No, unless in the very unlikely case that the specific GPL code in question grants you that right as its own special exception. Only someone who controls the rights to a given project can offer you license terms for that project, no matter what ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible