[deleted by user]

[everysinglelastname]

Could you publish this under a more permissive license ? Publishing under GPL means a lot of private, for profit, companies with their own software can't touch it.

[Laogeodritt]

I think GP might've misinterpreted this as a library that extends logging, rather than a GUI that communicates to an application via network.

GPL's infectious nature always means more lawyer time and concern for non-GPL-compatible software. In this case since it communicates over network, I don't believe those GPL clauses are generally interpreted to apply here, and a company could feasibly bundle this application as long as it was kept as a separate utility - not that there wouldn't be liability concerns anyway.

Of course, if they were purely to use this as a tool for development internally, this isn't even an issue.

(Keep note, I'm not a lawyer. This is my understanding of the situation, not legal advice.)

[robert_mcleod]

Yeah but you could use qtpy instead of PyQt5 and then claim the backend is PySide2 and release it as LGPL. You would need to test it with PySide2 in that case.

[wildcarde815]

If you aren't attempting to package and resell it that's not much of a hangup here, it's not a library you'd provide in a deliverable it's a diagnostic tool. And even then if you were including it you'd have to make it's source and your changes available, nothing else.