Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 8, 2016 20:18 UTC (Fri) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
In reply to: Mono Relicensed MIT by mathstuf
Parent article: Mono Relicensed MIT

> > What part of: "GPL forces you to disclose your source code *if* *you* *distribute* *it* as a part of your product" is incorrect?
> The part where the GPL isn't applicable to code that you don't ship in the first place?
Highlighted.

> Um…wow. You're saying people shouldn't be free to license their code under the GPL because you (and Apple) don't like it.
Uhm, sorry I was not clear. I meant that I absolute agree that authors should be able to use whatever license they want for their code. It's just that GPL is almost never a _good_ choice.

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 8, 2016 20:43 UTC (Fri) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]

Well, yeah, if you ship code deriving from GPL code, you have to ship your source as well. In aggregate, only the GPL bit needs source (though I'm not as familiar with GPLv3 here, care to fully quote the relevant section(s)?). The alternative to not shipping code for your code is to not have the GPL code in there in the first place.

> Uhm, sorry I was not clear. I meant that I absolute agree that authors should be able to use whatever license they want for their code. It's just that GPL is almost never a _good_ choice.

In your opinion. Others have different weighting functions.

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 8, 2016 20:55 UTC (Fri) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]

"It's just that GPL is almost never a _good_ choice for Cyberax."

Fixed it for you.