Hey Silvain, I think I talked to Tom about this some years ago, and he stated that the GNURadio OOT block code has to be GPLv3 or at least a compatible license. Because that for sure is a derivative work. But you might be right that it does not need to be strictly GPLv3 and Tom might have also stated exactly that and I just don't remember. But thanks for the answer, it makes my attempts to push for FOSS at work a lot easier (Not using GPLv3 cause it is considered evil here :/).
Cheers, Jan 2016-07-07 11:43 GMT+02:00 Sylvain Munaut <246...@gmail.com>: > > I think the GNURadio OOT block glue has to be GPLv3 in any case and that > is > > fine. > > Why ? > > As long as the license is GPLv3 compatible you can publish it under > what you like. > Now of course when re-distributed as binary/complete system, the > effective license will be GPLv3 because the gplv3 compatibility often > uses the "sub-licence" clause to be compatible ... > > But if someone wants to extract parts of your code he can do that and > use it as whatever license you used. Same thing if they somehow > re-implement an API compatble runtime that doesn't rely on gpl code > for instance. > > And that obviously applies to whatever lib you use as well. (Actually > if that lib is "standalone" and not tied to GR in anyway, it's > probably not considered a "derivative work" and so it can be any > license you like, doesn't even need to be GPL compatible, but that may > prevent binary distributions though depending on details) > > (Of course IANAL ... but I'm pretty sure of what I'm saying at least in > the EU). > > Cheers, > > Sylvain >
_______________________________________________ Discuss-gnuradio mailing list Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
