Can a non-GPL software dynamically call a GPL library?
A key dispute related to the GPL is whether or not non-GPL software can be dynamically linked to GPL libraries. The GPL is clear in requiring that all derivative works of code under the GPL must themselves be under the GPL.
Can a GPL license be used on a website?
Only a lawyer can give you proper legal advice. This very strongly seems to disagree if you are using it on a website, rather than re-distributing an executable: You may copy, distribute and modify the software as long as you track changes/dates of in source files and keep modifications under GPL.
Can a GPL tool be made open source?
Unless someone in the comments disagrees, I’d like to point out that if you need to use a bit of GPL code at your devops / build layer, you can make that tool a separate application which CAN, potentially, be made open source w/o giving away the product your other-named tool builds. If you use GPL code at runtime, you gotta give out the source.
Who is responsible for enforcing the GPL license?
Since the GPL is a copyright license, the copyright holders of the software are the ones who have the power to enforce the GPL. If you see a violation of the GPL, you should inform the developers of the GPL-covered software involved. They either are the copyright holders, or are connected with the copyright holders.
Can a GPL limit the use of an interpreter?
When the interpreter just interprets a language, the answer is no. The interpreted program, to the interpreter, is just data; a free software license like the GPL, based on copyright law, cannot limit what data you use the interpreter on.
Can you re-use anything from the GPL code?
Don’t re-use anything from the GPL code because that would fall under the GPL license. However, there’s nothing wrong with using a similar structure. Since this interface is your own creation, it would fall under your own license. You’re free to use it any way you like.
How can I interpret a license like the GPL?
Statutes and case law provide little help in interpreting a license like the GPL. On the other hand, many of us give significant weight to the interpretive views of the Free Software Foundation (FSF), the drafter and steward of the GPL, even in the typical case where the FSF is not a copyright holder of the software at issue.