Timeline for Licencing my project while considering dependencies
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 21, 2016 at 15:14 | comment | added | Thomas Owens | @Aurora Talking about licensing using hypothetical is generally pointless. In order to understand what you are required or prohibited from doing requires knowing what licenses are involved, how you are including or linking to the licensed work, and if modifications were made to someone else's work. Some licenses (like GPL and MIT) don't make distinctions between static and dynamic linking, while others (LGPL) do. Some licenses are on a per-file basis, while others are applied to a whole work. Some licenses force you to use compatible licenses for your work (GPL) and others (MIT, Apache) don't. | |
| May 21, 2016 at 14:58 | comment | added | Awn | And what about licences that don't even have a clause for dynamically linked code? Licences like MIT? | |
| May 21, 2016 at 14:40 | comment | added | Awn | The dependencies and their respective licences were examples. So what you're saying is that it depends on the licence that the dependencies use? Is GPL the only edge case? | |
| May 21, 2016 at 13:00 | history | answered | Thomas Owens | CC BY-SA 3.0 |