| | <<<Back 1 day (to 2017/01/20) | 20170121 |
| Robin_Watts | sh4rm4^bnc: Nice. | 00:23.21 |
| sh4rm4^bnc | \o/ | 00:31.06 |
| vtorri | sh4rm4^bnc: are you sure that the licence of jsbot is correct ? | 06:00.32 |
| | mujs is AGPL v3, iirc | 06:00.56 |
| Robin_Watts | sh4rm4^bnc: Yes, your code should be AGPL too. | 08:46.16 |
| sh4rm4^bnc | oh ? i recalled it was plain gpl | 08:49.53 |
| Robin_Watts | sh4rm4^bnc: Nope. AGPL v3. | 08:51.24 |
| sh4rm4^bnc | anyway; even if my code itself is GPL2,linking it to mujs will make the whole AGPLv3 | 08:53.13 |
| | do you agree, Robin_Watts ? | 17:18.53 |
| Robin_Watts | sh4rm4^bnc: I think, *technically*, you are correct. | 23:48.54 |
| | But it's worthy of a note. Something like "The code within this project is licensed under the GNU GPL. The mujs library on which it depends is licensed under the GNU AGPL. Due to the viral nature of the licences, this means that complete project (and hence any binary distributed versions) are covered by the GNU AGPL, rather than the less restrictive GNU GPL. | 23:52.29 |
| | It seems a very strange situation, and one that is likely to cause confusion. | 23:52.48 |
| | Forward 1 day (to 2017/01/22)>>> | |
Log of #ghostscript at irc.freenode.net.