[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] N1, GPL violation?

From: ng0
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] N1, GPL violation?
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2016 18:56:29 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)

Mike Gerwitz <> writes:

> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 17:17:44 +0200, Nils Gillmann wrote:
>> I don't have the resources (time) to deal with this, but we are
>> pretty sure that N1[1] is violating the GPL.
> Unfortunately, if N1 is the copyright holder, then they can't really
> violate (in a useful sense) their own license---as the copyright holder,
> they're the only one that can enforce it.

Hm, that's right. My choice of words was off then.
It should've been "Is there something missing in the way they
distribute an GPL licensed application"?

> I notice also that they don't include a full copy of the GNU GPLv3+
> (they just have a mention of it in
>> It is a GPLv3 or later[2] project which only provides apm "build"
>> instructions to users and no instructions (or even hints) on how
>> to build your own binaries.
> What's the result of the build?  Is it not something you can run?

My problem is that it is just an apm/npm build instruction. Is
this how awful package "management" has become today so that this
is considered to be okay? I could try to get the toolchain to
build this on gentoo (on guixsd this would very obviously
currently not be possible) and see what the result is, but so far
I just see npm/apm.

> JavaScript (well, CoffeeScript in this case, I suppose) projects don't
> really have "binaries".

They distribute .deb, .exe, how are those not binaries in the
sense of binaries.
Before I reply further and might correct what I have now written
and sent, let me try to build it with their definition of
build instructions.

> See also


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]