On 10/16/15 3:36 PM, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 18:53:39 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
And I don't disagree with your point, just that it was not a correct
response to "but you definitely can't link any proprietary code
aganist [sic] it."
That I don't understand. You can indeed build your executable from a mix
of proprietary third party libraries and GPL code, that means you
definetively can link. You cannot distribute it together to another
third party, but your employer can use it and run a service with it.
The distribution is implied in the comment. If there isn't distribution,
the license taint isn't important, why bring it up? In any case, having
a GPL license for a library diminishes its usefulness to proprietary
People attribute way too many limitations to GPL codebases. For many
organizations the GPL would be perfectly ok for their software stack.
It depends on what you do. Sure, if you are a pure SAAS house, GPL is
perfectly fine, but if one day you want to license that as an
installable server, you need to re-develop that GPL piece, and make sure
your developers never looked at the code. It's not something to take