71–80 of 87 posts
[1]: not just the usual "we have a rich document model" that has plenty of options, but as in my input data is HTML, and conversions back and forth aren't reliable enough
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Confuses me too. Maybe its because they didn't say that the code was also distributed and that they didn't explicitly say that they use a certain library that is under the GPL?
It's the very act of distribution that contains the problem. If you use a GPL'd work in another work, your distribution of the other work must be GPL'd as well. GPL'd part + non-GPL'd-but-compatible part = GPL'd whole, but the parts still exist on their own under their respective original licenses. See Tomte's sibling comment to yours ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39840391 ) and my own other comment ( https:…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The answer to 2) surprises me. I mean, they only said MIT and didn't explicitly state that they provide the source and didn't say that they use a library under GPL. I guess if they provide the source with the binary and make the licenses of the used libraries clear it is ok? Having your part under MIT doesn't change the license of the library. MIT is not more but less restrictive than GPL. Also shouldn't the answer t…
> and didn't say that they use a library under GPL. The situation is exactly that: a GPL library incorporated into an MIT project: "You wrote a library in Rust and uploaded it to Cargo using the GPL license. Someone grabs it via cargo and uses it in their own project, which is distributed with the MIT license."
I needed a WYSIWYG web editor specifically for HTML[1] and landed on Fastmail's Squire https://github.com/fastmail/Squire >. It's MIT so you may enjoy it too... [1]: not just the usual "we have a rich document model" that has plenty of options, but as in my input data is HTML, and conversions back and forth aren't reliable enough
You mean: "It's MIT at the moment", right?
I needed a WYSIWYG web editor specifically for HTML[1] and landed on Fastmail's Squire https://github.com/fastmail/Squire >. It's MIT so you may enjoy it too... [1]: not just the usual "we have a rich document model" that has plenty of options, but as in my input data is HTML, and conversions back and forth aren't reliable enough
> "It's MIT" You mean: "It's MIT at the moment ", right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> people have the right to ask you for the source code. People you distributed binaries to have a right to the source code via the same method that the binaries are provided in. Or at least that was my understanding.
If it's a non-commercial affair, you can give them a "written offer valid for at least 3 years" and then you don't have to actually supply it unless someone asks. In practice, this isn't a very good option to take. Much better to provide it on a "network server" as they were called at the time the license was written.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me "used in" makes not much sense and I think of it as "used together with", but I might be wrong. Just because main() comes from that one object file and not the other, does that really make so much difference? In my assumption you just have to provide the source and clearly state which parts are under which license. Anyone can fork your MIT code and base their GPL program on it anyway. So providing your program…
Confirming what panzi is saying here, ssddanbrown you do not need to relicense your work. GPL and MIT are compatible. GPL only requires that you distribute the _combined_ work as GPL. So, your github project remains MIT and others can use your code under that license, but when _they_ link to TinyMCE and distribute, that distribution must include source code and also be licensed GPL as a whole.
What does the change mean if we have TinyMCE editor in our internal CMS tool and we plan on upgrading to version 7?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are already forks that are FOSS. FWIW Redis is still FOSS since SSPL is FOSS - very strong copyleft. It's not a proprietary license, it's rather "more AGPL than AGPL." Even if [the OSI]( https://opensource.org/sponsors ) disagrees.
If I'm understanding the changes Redis made, it's FOSS until you decide you want to use their server to create a cloud service offering. Am I mistaken?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's a non-commercial affair, you can give them a "written offer valid for at least 3 years" and then you don't have to actually supply it unless someone asks. In practice, this isn't a very good option to take. Much better to provide it on a "network server" as they were called at the time the license was written.
This sounds like a very sane option to take, id like it to be codified in a license. Eternal availability sounds like a real hassle to maintain.