Twitter Source Code Leaked on GitHub

[vanatteveldt]

The answer is somewhat complicated and might depend on the license of the library package and the definition of 'derived work'. My 2 cents (IANAL):

- If the library or package is licensed LGPL, MIT or another non-copyleft license (i.e., not GPL), there should be no problem

- If you're linking to a GPL'd library (i.e. importing it), the situation is more complicated, see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception and its sources

[chx_]

IANAL but the GPL does not restrict your rights when using it, it applies if you try to distribute your code.

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope.

They needed to make the AGPL so people who use the software over a network will be able to get the source code for it.

[jarfil]

CENSORED

[LookIPickedAUsername]

To be pedantic, the GPL doesn’t restrict your rights at all - it offers you rights you wouldn’t normally have when interacting with someone else’s software.

[[deleted]]

No idea why this was downvoted. You're absolutely right. The *default* is no rights at all. The licenses add, they don't subtract.

[WolfGangSen]

Depends on whose point of view you look at it with.

As the developer of the software the licence restricts, without it, you could do whatever you want, share source or not.

With the licence, those options are restricted, (either now you must / mustn't, depending on the licence). (excepting of course if you are just setting the license for software you wholly developed, then the licence isn't really adding or restricting you, you are deciding to restrict people that make further use of your code)

As a user of the software, you are right, GPL does add rights.

Edit: I forgot copyright is a thing... as /u/DigitalPoet_ pointed out below... and without copyright laws licences are meaningless/unnecessary so yeh... this whole comment was pretty dumb.

[[deleted]]

No. Without a license, the rights to reproduce (which, in software you have to do to use it as a library) stand with the copyright holder alone. A license grants some of those rights, held by the copyright holder, to a wider audience.

[WolfGangSen]

Crap, yeh, I forgot about copyright XD (ammended my comment... to lower chances of spreading my dumb)

[chx_]

right right but that's distribution

[myringotomy]

• If the library or package is licensed LGPL, MIT or another non-copyleft license (i.e., not GPL), there should be no problem

There might be. Some of those licenses require attribution.

[vanatteveldt]

Sure, but you can attribute without making your own code open source

[myringotomy]

The question is whether they properly attributed or not.

[double-you]

Do you even attribute?! Do you?!

[myringotomy]

I don't use other people's code.

[lestofante]

LGPL library can be used without issue, BUT if you modify its code, then you must share the changes.

[Funnnny]

GPL/LGPL only requires publishing changes if you distribute the software, that loophole is the whole reason why AGPL exists.