dsadinoff
commented
9 years ago On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Moshe notifications@github.com wrote:
According to GitHub's ChooseALicense.com http://choosealicense.com/licenses/gpl-3.0/, the GPL only requires that closed source programs disclose the source of the library covered by the GPL.
Not sure who told you that. Where, exactly does GitHub say this? You may be thinking of the LGPL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Compatibility_and_multi-licensing
from the GNU FAQ:
What is the difference between an “aggregate” and other kinds of “modified versions”? (#MereAggregation http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation)
An “aggregate” consists of a number of separate programs, distributed together on the same CD-ROM or other media. The GPL permits you to create and distribute an aggregate, even when the licenses of the other software are non-free or GPL-incompatible. The only condition is that you cannot release the aggregate under a license that prohibits users from exercising rights that each program's individual license would grant them.
Where's the line between two separate programs, and one program with two parts? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged).
If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.
By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.
——— Danny Sadinoff danny@sadinoff.com
Scimonster
MosheBerman
Hey,
I've ported KosherJava to Objective-C so I'm happy to see a similar library available in Javascript. I'm just not sure that you're reading the GPL correctly.
According to GitHub's ChooseALicense.com, the GPL only requires that closed source programs disclose the source of the library covered by the GPL.
If you specifically don't want to allow people to use hebcal-js in a closed source app, that's your decision, but you might be running into a GPL issue yourself.
Great work!